4 ms·

Android isn't a modified Linux, it just uses the very same Linux kernel as any other OS that uses Linux. Android is otherwise this userspace thing where other L

Android isn't a modified Linux, it just uses the very same Linux kernel as any other OS that uses Linux. Android is otherwise this userspace thing where other Linux-based systems have X11 and such with Qt and gtk and other things. Although not perfect, this really shows the value in the name "GNU/Linux" for the desktop distros and such vs "Android/Linux" Anyway, Ubuntu phone may not make it (seems unlikely), but it has more of a shot given the death of Firefox OS, not less. Ubuntu phone now has less competition in the alternative-mobile space.

eropple 11y ago
> this really shows the value in the name "GNU/Linux" for the desktop distros and such vs "Android/Linux" I don't really agree. For desktop users, the DE matters a lot more than who made `cp`. For server users, the distro matters more because of the particular weirdness of each.
- nonotmeplease 11y ago
  GNOME is part of the GNU project, as well as emacs, gtk, etc.
  - eropple 11y ago
    I am well aware of that. I don't use GNOME or GTK (indeed, on my Linux desktop libglib isn't even installed).
    - cosarara97 11y ago
      What are you running, Alpine?
      - eropple 11y ago
        I'm running Debian with KDE. The GNU tools are installed but by weight they're nowhere near the majority of the code on the system, to say nothing of the components I actually use. So calling that machine "GNU/Linux" instead of "KDE/X.org/Linux", given the relative importance of the individual components, would be stupid. Fortunately, we have the nearly universally understood "Linux" instead, and weird specializations like Android can be called something else.
        e12e 11y ago
        I agree that "naming all the things" is a bit silly. But I think GNU/Linux indicates Linux kernel, GNU libc, compiled with gcc -- which is actually kind of useful information. It doesn't say anything about the Graphical UI (if any). Similarly I think Android/Linux is useful, because it indicates something about what kind of (binary) software you can expect will work - and what will not. I also happen to think distinctions such as Debian/kFreeBSD (a Debian distribution based around the FreeBSD kernel, as opposed to (just) the regular FreeBSD user-land) are informative. I'm not sure what one should/would call a Linux distribution with an alternative (non-GNU) libc that relied on a non-GNU compiler chain... Probably "brandname"/Linux or "function"/Linux (eg: Linux Router Project or something)...
        eropple 11y ago
        This isn't a technical thing for any of the major proponents, though. It's a marketing thing, because after the spectacular failure of Hurd GNU was relegated to effectively a sideline (a useful one, for sure, but a sideline). I get a lot more direct and personal value out of code not provided by GNU than I do by code provided by GNU. I don't think they merit top billing, and I don't think the two decades of holding one's breath and turning purple deserves a reward.
        quadrangle 11y ago
        Look, the Linux kernel itself uses the GNU GPL, so GNU probably is the most important factor in all of this. Linux kernel under a proprietary license or even under BSD-style, you probably would never have heard of it. At any rate, basically nobody thinks HURD is useful anymore. RMS thinks time spent on HURD is a waste since it is totally unneeded now that we have the Linux kernel. GNU is a political movement about software freedom as much or more than a particular set of software, and even KDE is licensed with a GNU license. etc.
        eropple 11y ago
        "Look," the creator of Linux could not give the faintest fart about GNU and has said he'd use a different license if he could. Why should a political movement that specializes in lousy marketing campaigns and haranguing be given a nod? I do like that attempt, though. "Well, they used a license that GNU wrote, so GNU should get top billing!" Do you want to talk about how well Apache/Dropwizard and PostgreSQL/PostgreSQL work with Apache/Kotlin on GNU/OpenJDK8?
xyzzy_plugh 11y ago
This is not correct. Android has 150+ patches to Linux last I checked. It is not insignificant. There is not a good collection of patches to simply apply to a kernel of your choice either. Additionally, there are often many modifications made per-device or company (E.g. Samsung) or hardware configuration. Finally, many of those patches are unlikely to make it upstream anytime soon, as they are usually controversial. Please don't spread these falsehoods.

eropple 11y ago

> this really shows the value in the name "GNU/Linux" for the desktop distros and such vs "Android/Linux" I don't really agree. For desktop users, the DE matters a lot more than who made `cp`. For server users, the distro matters more because of the particular weirdness of each.

nonotmeplease 11y ago
GNOME is part of the GNU project, as well as emacs, gtk, etc.
- eropple 11y ago
  I am well aware of that. I don't use GNOME or GTK (indeed, on my Linux desktop libglib isn't even installed).
  - cosarara97 11y ago
    What are you running, Alpine?
    - eropple 11y ago
      I'm running Debian with KDE. The GNU tools are installed but by weight they're nowhere near the majority of the code on the system, to say nothing of the components I actually use. So calling that machine "GNU/Linux" instead of "KDE/X.org/Linux", given the relative importance of the individual components, would be stupid. Fortunately, we have the nearly universally understood "Linux" instead, and weird specializations like Android can be called something else.
      - e12e 11y ago
        I agree that "naming all the things" is a bit silly. But I think GNU/Linux indicates Linux kernel, GNU libc, compiled with gcc -- which is actually kind of useful information. It doesn't say anything about the Graphical UI (if any). Similarly I think Android/Linux is useful, because it indicates something about what kind of (binary) software you can expect will work - and what will not. I also happen to think distinctions such as Debian/kFreeBSD (a Debian distribution based around the FreeBSD kernel, as opposed to (just) the regular FreeBSD user-land) are informative. I'm not sure what one should/would call a Linux distribution with an alternative (non-GNU) libc that relied on a non-GNU compiler chain... Probably "brandname"/Linux or "function"/Linux (eg: Linux Router Project or something)...
        eropple 11y ago
        This isn't a technical thing for any of the major proponents, though. It's a marketing thing, because after the spectacular failure of Hurd GNU was relegated to effectively a sideline (a useful one, for sure, but a sideline). I get a lot more direct and personal value out of code not provided by GNU than I do by code provided by GNU. I don't think they merit top billing, and I don't think the two decades of holding one's breath and turning purple deserves a reward.
        quadrangle 11y ago
        Look, the Linux kernel itself uses the GNU GPL, so GNU probably is the most important factor in all of this. Linux kernel under a proprietary license or even under BSD-style, you probably would never have heard of it. At any rate, basically nobody thinks HURD is useful anymore. RMS thinks time spent on HURD is a waste since it is totally unneeded now that we have the Linux kernel. GNU is a political movement about software freedom as much or more than a particular set of software, and even KDE is licensed with a GNU license. etc.
        eropple 11y ago
        "Look," the creator of Linux could not give the faintest fart about GNU and has said he'd use a different license if he could. Why should a political movement that specializes in lousy marketing campaigns and haranguing be given a nod? I do like that attempt, though. "Well, they used a license that GNU wrote, so GNU should get top billing!" Do you want to talk about how well Apache/Dropwizard and PostgreSQL/PostgreSQL work with Apache/Kotlin on GNU/OpenJDK8?

xyzzy_plugh 11y ago

This is not correct. Android has 150+ patches to Linux last I checked. It is not insignificant. There is not a good collection of patches to simply apply to a kernel of your choice either. Additionally, there are often many modifications made per-device or company (E.g. Samsung) or hardware configuration. Finally, many of those patches are unlikely to make it upstream anytime soon, as they are usually controversial. Please don't spread these falsehoods.