[PurpleRamen]

> ChromeOS is quite literally desktop Linux.

Yes it is, but AFAIK it's still a walled garden. The user has no control over what's going on under the hood. This is different from what most people understand as desktop Linux. Linux is a synonym for full control from the device owner, which in case of ChromeOS is not given.

This is a shortcoming in the naming, and it might be better to find a better term, but this is still the current situation we have.

[aseipp]

I mean, you can install native Linux on lots of chromebooks, they run open source firmware (Coreboot), allow powerusers to disable secure boot with a strong security stance (e.g. it requires resetting device keys so you can't just physically steal a laptop and bypass it), most of the code is open source, has a high security profile beyond other desktop OSs, etc.

> Linux is a synonym for full control from the device owner, which in case of ChromeOS is not given.

It really is not, either in theory or more importantly in practice (cf the billion devices that ship Android or shitware ARM trinkets that ship Yocto builds with forked kernels that can't be updated, userspace blob binaries, etc.) One of my last companies had an opts team that provisioned immutable cloud VMs for developers where persistent updates had to go through CI and be deployed/rebooted. Does this mean we weren't "Using Linux?" or that our VMs were "Walled gardens?" Is it a walled garden if I distribute a .deb for my FOSS project and not an .rpm or PKGBUILD for Arch Linux? If anything, the fact of the matter is that you can just install Chrome or $FAVORITE_BROWSER on your favorite distro and then use 98% of the same apps ChromeOS users do -- they're mostly webpages!

The real distinction people need to make is who controls the project and what direction it has, and whether that matters to them. The other stuff are just random goalposts that people make up. ChromeOS is Desktop Linux, it's secure, it's highly successful, and it's also lead by Google. The "Google" part is what makes everyone uneasy. But it's unquestionably a productionized Linux Desktop.

[PurpleRamen]

> It really is not, either in theory or more importantly in practice (cf the billion devices that ship Android or shitware ARM trinkets that ship Yocto builds with forked kernels that can't be updated, userspace blob binaries, etc.)

Android is not desktop, and as I understand it, neither are yocto-devices?

We are specifically talking here about market share of desktops, not market share of linux-kernel or the gnu-userland. And while there is some overlap, I don't think it makes much sense to mix those statistics as both have different purposes.

[CrampusDestrus]

We are clearly not talking about the market share of desktops because you are making a personal distinction between the Linux Desktop and the Linux Desktop Experience™.

ChromeOS is objectively Linux Desktop. RHEL desktop machines where only the IT department (and not the employees) has root access are objectively Linux Desktop.

[PurpleRamen]

As I already said, yes it's technically a desktop, running on Linux, thus a Linux desktop, but this is not what many people except under the term "Linux desktop". So bringing in any other device which just happen to also use the Linux kernel, is pointless for the question what people consider a "Linux desktop" or not. Especially when those other devices are not even desktops...

[em-bee]

ok, but i am not interested in the linux kernel on the desktop, but FOSS on the desktop. just like android, it doesn't look like chrome OS is that.

you can just install Chrome or $FAVORITE_BROWSER on your favorite distro and then use 98% of the same apps ChromeOS users do -- they're mostly webpages

you could do that on windows too. which just shows that chrome OS is not linux or GNU/Linux on the desktop, but it is actually a web OS. like android, linux and even GNU is only there under the hood and not on the actual desktop.