It’s not unusual to see people talking about android users being Linux users “because android is Linux too” clearly not understanding the difference between Linux the OS, i.e. GNU/Linux, and Linux the kernel. So it’s useful when you have to make such a distinction.
Alpine is also arguably not “GNU/Linux”, as it doesn’t use GNU Core Utils or glibc. But I don’t know anyone who would suggest that Alpine isn’t “proper Linux”.
There is no GNU/Linux OS; the FSF has never defined a base that demonstrates the GNU/Linux OS. All the FSF has done is loosely define guidelines that basically allows them to endorse any 100% free (libre), self-hosted, distribution that supports a 100% copy left license and does not promote in any way or auto install non-free or non-open software by default.
Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that have adopted the GNU/Linux name scheme because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.
Furthermore, here’s the real kicker, if someone decides to take one of the endorsed GNU/Linux distributions and modify it to run FISH instead of BASH, you would now have a GNU/Linux distribution that was incompatible with other GNU/Linux distributions but still identifiable as GNU/Linux.
This is why FSF and their “GNU/Linux” scheme is just a stupid R. Stallman political stunt to make his life’s pursuit relevant; the movement tries to benefit from everyone else’s work without actually accomplishing the one thing they need to do which is to actually define what packages, versions, implementations are GNU/Linux.
Ultimately what I am saying is that defining the guidelines is only half the solution; the other half is the FSF needs to define and maintain their own LSB (Linux Standard Base)
Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as >GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that did adopt the GNU/Linux name >scheme, because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.
You are totally confused. In words of R. Stallman:
“The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux”.
“Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include nonfree programs”.
It’s not unusual to see people talking about android users being Linux users “because android is Linux too” clearly not understanding the difference between Linux the OS, i.e. GNU/Linux, and Linux the kernel. So it’s useful when you have to make such a distinction.
Exactly. When I say I want a Linux phone all I get are Android options. What I want is a GNU/Linux phone that I can run full Linux distros on.
Alpine or PostmarketOS works for older stuff. Some others will run Ubuntu as well.
Instead of “Linux on [phone]” try using Debian/Ubuntu or one of the mobile-targeting distros as a keyword
Alpine is also arguably not “GNU/Linux”, as it doesn’t use GNU Core Utils or glibc. But I don’t know anyone who would suggest that Alpine isn’t “proper Linux”.
I’m about to step in it…
There is no GNU/Linux OS; the FSF has never defined a base that demonstrates the GNU/Linux OS. All the FSF has done is loosely define guidelines that basically allows them to endorse any 100% free (libre), self-hosted, distribution that supports a 100% copy left license and does not promote in any way or auto install non-free or non-open software by default.
Unfortunately for them this means that 99.99% of the Linux distributions out there do not qualify as GNU/Linux, even the ones like Debian, Red Hat, or Ubuntu that have adopted the GNU/Linux name scheme because they all host, promote, or allow users access to non-free software in some way.
Furthermore, here’s the real kicker, if someone decides to take one of the endorsed GNU/Linux distributions and modify it to run FISH instead of BASH, you would now have a GNU/Linux distribution that was incompatible with other GNU/Linux distributions but still identifiable as GNU/Linux.
This is why FSF and their “GNU/Linux” scheme is just a stupid R. Stallman political stunt to make his life’s pursuit relevant; the movement tries to benefit from everyone else’s work without actually accomplishing the one thing they need to do which is to actually define what packages, versions, implementations are GNU/Linux.
Ultimately what I am saying is that defining the guidelines is only half the solution; the other half is the FSF needs to define and maintain their own LSB (Linux Standard Base)
deleted by creator
You are totally confused. In words of R. Stallman:
“The kernel is an essential part of an operating system, but useless by itself; it can only function in the context of a complete operating system. Linux is normally used in combination with the GNU operating system: the whole system is basically GNU with Linux added, or GNU/Linux. All the so-called “Linux” distributions are really distributions of GNU/Linux”.
“Today there are many different variants of the GNU/Linux system (often called “distros”). Most of them include nonfree programs”.
https://www.gnu.org/gnu/linux-and-gnu.html
You clearly didn’t understand what I said…