I agree, the phrasing is bad, but that doesn't change that if you read it carefully, the meaning is clear.
There is absolutely no reasonable basis for claiming he is defending pedophiles, when what he does is the direct opposite, by logically proving that a common defense they use is invalid, because you can never claim to know participation is voluntary. It is per definition coerced.

Everytime someone calls their system a Linux based OS and not GNU/Linux based OS downplays the work he put in.

Absolutely, and the fact that people didn't adopt it creates confusion, some people claim Android is also Linux, which you can argue, but it's definitely NOT GNU/Linux, and it's definitely NOT a free desktop OS as defined by freedesktop.org either. There's a huge difference.
Especially since Android generally means Android with Google apps, and not AOSP. AOSP is open source, but Android with Google apps is not.

And what's your point with posting this? My guess is that you don't even understand it.
He is saying there is no such thing as willing participation from a child in pedophilia. Are you saying there is?

I can't remember having seen them debating each other, either in person or otherwise. But their positions are well known. Linus chose the GPL license from an engineering/pragmatic viewpoint, while Stallman is an idealist.

Apparently they are quite friendly:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bDxMJQLXmBE

IDK if federations doesn't work, I already wrote to another response that I use Bash.
Since the Amiga in the 80's I considered CLI windows and Shell as the same thing,because they kind of were on the Amiga, as there was only 1 shell, and a CLI window was also called Shell. But that was obviously a misunderstanding I just never got quite rid of.

Ah OK, Bash because it's default.

xterm, because shortcut keys do what they are supposed to.

Edit:

Bash because it's default.

Interesting, I just don't get that last line, Linux came out in 1991, so how is 1991 way before Linux?

I'm not sure either, that if the GNU project had managed to make a decent kernel, that it would have made the world a different place today. At least not for the better.
The Linux kernel is the most successful piece of open software ever made, and it's GPL like GNU. I am far from sure another kernel would have been equally successful either technologically or in benefiting all sorts of computers.

That's an impressive list, 👍
I admit I forgot AIX, but the others there are reasons I didn't consider, I have explained in other posts why on BSD and MAC OS. Same arguments are true for most of your list.
But it's still an impressive and interesting list. And yes AIX absolutely qualifies.

Good catch, I guess that's mostly true, but Windows NT was an evolution of Windows that mainly got rid of the DOS legacy. Which after Windows NT ran on a compatibility layer, where Windows 3 ran on DOS directly.
It's a bit of a grey area. But I'd say windows NT was a continuation of Windows that shared almost the entire API from Windows 3.0.
The old "System n" OS was also called MAC OS. And the switch to OSX was a completely new OS where the old MAC OS software ran on a compatibility layer.

I guess it can be seen either way.

Yes BSD just hasn't had much luck, I have no idea why the GNU project didn't use the BSD kernel? They say the Linux kernel was the final piece to make it a complete OS. But AFAIK BSD existed with a kernel way before that.