You are talking about the OS while the person you are discussing with is speaking about the kernel.
The Linux kernel has its own merits outside standard Linux userspace.
I agree, saying that the fact standard Linux distros and Android share the same kernel has no single meaningful implication really undervalues the Linux kernel.
I also agree that it's important to keep in mind the two OSes are mostly incompatible.
The two OSes sharing the kernel have practical implications, including (theoretically) seeing improvements coming from Android dev in the kernel that can benefit standard linux distros, and things like Termux or Waydroid.
Compiling the mainline Linux kernel myself really taught me that the kernel does way more than people give it credit for. Sure, it can be debated as to whether two distributions of Linux can really be considered the same OS, but acting like the kernel is a relatively minor detail comes off to me as ignorant.
You’re keeping a discussion on technical reasoning for why Android and Desktop Linux are separated in a list like that, but the reason is not technical. It’s wholly for convenience. We want to know the performance of Desktop Linux separate from Android. Whether or not they are a different OS or not is irrelevant.
> We want to know the performance of Desktop Linux separate from Android
... Because they are a different OS.
> You’re keeping a discussion on technical reasoning for why Android and Desktop Linux are separated in a list like that
Mind you, my motivation to have them separated aren't that technical. Actually, I'd be more interested in the philosophical / social aspects of the question.
That doesn't mean the technical aspects aren't interesting and this subthread is technical, and I've been snipped by the technical inaccuracies present there.
In a way, the philosophical discussion also has less risk of being clouded by technical inaccuracies too, and more chance of succeeding in the technicalities are sorted out, especially in presence of people who know the technical details.
You are free to spark a nontechnical discussion in which you motivate why, technical details aside, we should be interested in having the two separated. Please do!
So when somebody says "Linux reaches X market share", are they talking about the kernel? Why does it even matter how much the kernel is used? Would you count WSL?
This is exactly my question. You said the discussion's about the kernel. Why do you want to evaluate its usage? Which conclusions are you going to draw?
Because when talking about the OS, you can conclude that Windows and MacOS start falling behind the free software.
I never implied this. This subthread is about countering your affirmation that Android being based on the linux kernel has no single meaningful implication. It's not anymore about evaluating usage and counting stuff.
This all started with a commenter writing "Android systems don't even run the linux kernel in any real sense", which is wrong, or at least highly misleading and confusing (I do agree with this commenter about the fact that we are talking about forks that don't upstream their shit, which does have severe implications). You could say that Android systems usually don't run mainline Linux kernel.
> you can conclude that Windows and MacOS start falling behind the free software.
I wish :-) And I wouldn't generally include Android in the free software family, few people run Replicant or some Android flavor without the Google services, let alone without proprietary blobs. (I would count blob-free Android)
> Almost every Android version imposes new major restrictions when it comes to security requirements, and specifically the Android 10 version update was dramatic for Termux usage, as it disallowed executing downloaded files directly.
> The Termux app avoided that by using a targetSdkVersion of Android 9, declaring that it was not compatible with the Android 10 requirements.
For now it's not a huge barrier to Termux running. We can go run Android 2 stuff today, & maybe Android will forever be backwards compatible.
It does mean that Termux can't build a top or use any new Android features. Termux is glued to a truly ancient version of Android, because Android became inhospitable to basic Linux userland use cases. Seems its mostly about being unable to run downloaded code, which feels admittedly like very much "just a technicality", but boy oh boy has that technicality kept Android from expanding outside of its own bespoke userland.
Wait, no, Termux is not stuck at Gingerbread, it's stuck at Android 9 (Pie).
Agree with the rest though. Android is a sinking ship, not only the Termux issue, but the increasing number of basic apps and features that are proprietary and not part of AOSP. I hope we'll be able to be caught by Linux Mobile or something like this in time.
Right, Android target levels are so different in how they behave towards applications that they're practically best treated as distinct OS's to begin with. There's really no such thing as a unified Android or iOS, unlike Windows or desktop Linux where even a program from the mid-1990s will run unmodified in the latest version of the OS.
>Termux is glued to a truly ancient version of Android, because Android became inhospitable to basic Linux userland use cases.
No, this only a problem with Termux's approach of trying to put all apps into a single app. One Linux app should correspond to one Android app. This also makes it so that permissions you grant to the app is not to all of termux, but to a specific app.
Linux is a kernel, that's it. There is an organisation maintaining it, and also the trademark.
There is also a major family of OSes building on the kernel + gnu userspace, which you probably call "desktop linux".
In my house there are dozens of devices running linux the kernel: routers, a tv set, washing machines, NAS, printers, etc. Some have the full gnu posix-like stack, others are very barebones.
Then, there's is a bunch of android devices running the kernel as well.
What's wrong with all of these? At what point should i draw a line?
To me, Desktop Linux is the Linux I run on my work computer: the one that has a screen, a keyboard and a mouse. It is based on Linux (obviously), the GNU userland to some extent, and then it has a graphical environment (usually based on Xorg or Wayland).
This is different from embedded Linux or Linux on a server. And this is different from Linux-the-kernel (which runs on Android).
What if I run linux + gnu + gnome over rdp on VM a server in a rack somewhere that has no screen keyboard and mouse on it? Am i using desktop linux or not?
What if that same VM also is running nginx and serving up web content?
What if I have a pc with a keyboard and monitor sitting literally on my desktop, and it's running linux + gnu but no graphical environment, and I use it for coding (it has music playing when I do this, and i sometime check email or github issues, etc via cli) - yes I've done this, even recently to reduce distractions... some days GUIs are bad for my adhd. Is that a desktop linux? If not, why? What's different about this than doing basically the same thing, but also having a browser open when it's surrounded by a GUI?
Well, you came up with a rather vague definition. Xorg OR wayland. Gtk or qt? Which set of tools do you expect to be available?
All of that is just too nebulous. Linux is something that runs the kernel, that's about it.
I mean, I've been using linux for all of my life, servers, at home, for work, embedded dev, corporate environment, as a manager and as a dev, etc.
What I see is that linux as already everywhere. Desktop space is the only OS market where non-linux OSes are in the majority, and maybe this is why people are so excited about these pointless numbers.