[yellowapple]

"non-default helper programs"

Define "default". From the perspective of a user buying a Chromebook, the "helper programs" are very much the default.

Additionally, "helper programs that obfuscate the underlying OS" is pretty much the whole point of a desktop environment. I fail to see what point you're trying to make there.

"I mean, yeah Android is nice. And it technically runs Linux."

Which is really all that matters. We're talking about the Year of the Linux Desktop, not the Year of the KDE Desktop or the Year of the GNU Desktop.

Not that Android is (usually) a desktop OS, but whatever.

"But so does my wifi router... just because I plugged it in and logged into the web interface doesn't mean I can, with a straight face, claim that I am a Linux user."

Sure you can. You're not a Linux desktop user, but you still use Linux in some capacity rather than, say, VxWorks or IOS.

"Does having a laptop that boots straight into a browser without showing anything lower level than that really count as Linux? Does it really make me a Linux user?"

I think it does. It'd be no different from being a Windows user who only uses a web browser.

[freehunter]

>I fail to see what point you're trying to make there

Do you? Because it doesn't seem like it. I didn't exactly stutter.

[yellowapple]

You don't have to stutter for your point to be logically inconsistent to the point of incomprehensibility. Lorem ipsum is nonsensical faux-Latin regardless of any speech impediments.

If ChromeOS or Android don't count as "real" Linux desktops because (aside from Android not usually being used for desktops) they abstract away the "Linux" part, then by your exact same logic, any Linux distro that ships with a full-fledged desktop environment is not a "real" Linux desktop, either, since they by design abstract away the Linux part. In fact, literally no actual operating system could possibly be a Linux desktop unless we want to go ahead and turn all user software into kernel modules, since literally anything in userspace is by definition an abstraction on top of Linux.

Linux is one component in a fully-featured operating system. Exactly which userland happens to be running on top of it does not change one's status as a Linux user.

Meanwhile, pretty much every desktop environment for Linux (except maybe recent versions of GNOME) is not exclusive to Linux, so by the logic you've presented, there's literally no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop.

[freehunter]

>[maybe] there's no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop.

That may be the simplest answer, but when people talk about "the year of Linux on the desktop" they're talking about something in particular, right? Or does any Linux system count? Android smart TVs? Routers? Mall kiosks? Car infotainment systems? Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program? Or are we only counting systems where we can drop to a shell? In which case, do we only count Android phones that let you install bash, or only ones that can be rooted, or do we count them all?

It's not a logical inconsistency, and it's not incomprehensible. It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate "it runs on Linux" from "it's Linux on the desktop"? Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago.

[yellowapple]

"when people talk about 'the year of Linux on the desktop' they're talking about something in particular, right?"

Yes: they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer. ChromeOS meets all those criteria. Android would meet all those criteria should it ever be widely deployed on laptops or desktops.

So:

"It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate 'it runs on Linux' from 'it's Linux on the desktop'?"

And it's a simple answer:

1: It's a desktop or laptop computer.

2: It's running Linux.

3: It's running a graphical desktop environment.

If all three of those things are true, then it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for Ubuntu, so it's Linux on the desktop. All three of those things are true for ChromeOS, so it's Linux on the desktop.

Whether the operating system allows lower-level access (like a command-line interface) is irrelevant.

"Because if my router counts, Linux won a long time ago."

Your router probably doesn't meet those criteria, since it's probably not a desktop computer and probably not running a desktop environment.

"Android smart TVs?"

Fails criterion 1.

"Routers?"

Fails criteria 1 and 3.

"Mall kiosks?"

Probably fails criterion 3, and almost certainly fails criterion 1.

"Car infotainment systems?"

Fails criterion 1.

"Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program?"

Fails criterion 1.

[freehunter]

> they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer

That's literally what I was asking. Thank you for replying with your opinion on the subject, it's ridiculous that it's taken this long for someone to say what they actually think instead of just arguing about compiling kernels and a lack of Scottish people.

In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop. In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop. I understand there are other opinions, but when I think Linux on the desktop, I think Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, etc. Even the Wikipedia page about Linux on the desktop says "The term Linux adoption often overlooks operating systems or other uses such as in Chrome OS that also use the Linux kernel (but have almost nothing else in common, not even the name – Linux – usually applied"

So there is definitely room for debate. But apparently not on this forum.

[yellowapple]

"In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop."

Agreed, since it does not (usually) run on a desktop or laptop computer.

"In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop."

And why not? That's the point that I've been trying to coax out with no success. What makes it anything but Linux on the desktop?

Is it the fact that it doesn't provide low-level access to the system by default? If so, then why is that a requirement for a desktop system? It seems to not be in line with how the vast majority of desktop computer users actually use their computers. It would also exclude Windows and macOS from being desktop operating systems, since they're (IMO) just as hard to work with on a low level (if not harder) than ChromeOS (but not as hard as Android or iOS).

Is it the fact that everything's web based? If so - again - why does that matter? Who cares what executable format is used or what programming language is used for user-facing software? (Of course, this "fact" ain't entirely true: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/overview)

Is it the fact that the Linux name is not used? If so, then by that logic Ubuntu is not a "real" desktop Linux system, since https://www.ubuntu.com/desktop doesn't mention Linux anywhere (except for the developer subpage, where it's mentioned as a development feature).

The Wikipedia quote explains the perception's existence. It doesn't explain why that perception of "ChromeOS ain't a real Linux on the desktop" exists or by what criteria it's not a "real" Linux desktop. The fact that it uses the Linux kernel is the only thing that matters for the phrase "desktop Linux", since - again - we're talking about desktop Linux, not desktop GNU or desktop KDE or desktop GNOME or desktop whatever other software.