[vkazanov]

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?

[palata]

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).

[sophacles]

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?

[palata]

I feel like you're overthinking it. It's not that one can get a badge saying "powered by Desktop Linux". It's a rough categorisation based on the use case:

* Embedded Linux is what you expect to see on a "small" device that usually doesn't have a graphical environment (it may have a small screen showing a temperature).

* A Linux server is what you expect to see in racks, serving stuff over the Internet. A homeserver could be that, too.

* Linux on mobile is what you would put on your phone.

* Desktop Linux is what you would put on your working computer, the one you interact with "physically".

Of course, you can run a server on your personal laptop, and you could run a "Desktop" graphical environment on a mobile phone. But that's beside the point. And of course, you can work on a Linux without a graphical environment.

[vkazanov]

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.

[jraph]

Desktop Linux is difficult to define exactly, but the idea has merits. Something that's not proprietary, and that's not incredibly closed / locked / controlled by a monopolist like Android or Chrome OS.

> maybe this is why people are so excited about these pointless numbers.

I'd be excited by numbers showing an increase free software use, including the OS, first and foremost.

For what I personally care, I'd be happy to drop the Linux kernel requirement and extend the scope to Desktop BSDs and other open source desktop OS as well. People being trapped in closed OSes that happen to be based on a Linux kernel is of limited comfort anyway, actually.