When ever someone ask the question, "What would Jesus do", they are usually less interested in what Jesus would do and more interested in persuading someone else to do something they would not otherwise do.
The historical figure "Jesus" set a pretty clear example of how an individual should coexists with others. An example that by and large is but a footnote in most American evangelical offshoots of Christianity. Rather, self serving power structures construct a hodge-podge mix of old and new testament hegemony that 90% of the time ain't got jack shit to do with the near Buddhist examples of Christ himself. Godly inspired racism, sexism, discrimination, intolerance of another's beliefs, and war upon your fellow man are all "classic" examples.
In the 150 years after Christ got hammered, Just about every permutation of future church leadership was tried out. There's at least some evidence of a blood line based church leadership and the sect that buried the dead sea scrolls. The only one that survived used a form of elections to pick successors, and by implication, who spoke for god.
In Islam, following the death of Mohammed, the same thing played out again with the Sunni and the Shiites. And once again in America with the LDS church after the martyrdom of Joseph Smith. In every case that I know of, bloodline ascensions (or similar predisposition), almost always become the weaker of the two splinters. Where as the sects that hold elections and decide whose going to play the role of god's spokesperson, thrive.
It will be the same with Linus. There'll be red faced rants quoting mailing lists from the "holy years" of Linus. "Linus would never allow....", "It would be an abomination to Linus if....".
Same shit, different day, different Jihad. Meanwhile, FreeBSD and the like, being godless and democratic, will continue to move forward with nary a speed bump.