If Linux is just the kernel then Android and Ubuntu are equally Linux.

It is and they are. These are demonstrable facts.

I have no problem with referring to the family of Linux based operating systems collectively as Linux (with GNU/Linux being a subfamily of such), however, I firmly believe that the mythical concept of “real Linux” where some Linuxes aren’t really Linux is what creates the confusion. I would rather use other terms, like POSIX, Unix(like), and FreeDesktop to refer to so-called “real Linux” (with the caveat that they also include BSDs and the like - but I include these as part of the free desktop operating system spectrum, as most so-called Linux apps also run here. I don’t place special importance on the kernel because it is technically the furthest thing away from the user experience).

(Android being Linux isn’t a mere technicality - it means you can get a full terminal environment with a package manager and “Linux apps” and even run a full desktop environment if you really want)

Stallman’s attempt to rename Linux

There was never any “attempt to rename Linux.” Stallman simply wants to clarify which part of the operating system is “Linux” (the kernel) and which part(s) are not (many of which are his work, which Linux fans insist on also calling “Linux” even though the GNU project predates it by almost a decade).

Any “confusion” on this point is the result of Linux fans spreading mistruths (I assume only sometimes intentionally). Unfortunately at this point the myths are so firmly ingrained we have myths about the myths (like “Stallman wants to rename Linux”) and in my mind Stallman is definitely fighting a losing battle nowadays. Still, a falsehood being widely accepted does not make it true.

Linux is an operating system kernel and Windows is an entire operating system. You can’t really compare them

I will continue to maintain that it is bitterly ironic for a product which is 95% based on free software to be so hostile to software freedom. They feel so entitled to take but don’t want to give back, and they justify it by saying that that others will do the same thing they did if they do make it fully free.

A proprietary browser is a non-starter for me, especially when there are many free alternatives, even Chromium based ones. I’d take Ungoogled-Chromium on desktop or Cromite on mobile, heck I’d take Brave even.

For me LineageOS is a good baseline. I don’t have anything against “privacy” OS’s but they’re not really for me. I just use F-Droid to get apps and don’t care about compatibility with proprietary stuff so neither microG nor the GrapheneOS sandboxed Play services are of interest to me. I don’t use GrapheneOS because I don’t have or want a Pixel phone.

LineageOS significantly increases the lifespan of devices it supports and that’s important to me. Planned obsolescence is cancer.

My ideal mobile OS would be something like Mobian (or even better, a GNU Guix based distribution) but it should be noted that AOSP is also a Linux based operating system and thus anything derived from that is a Linux mobile OS.

Microsoft is about as bad as any other proprietary software company. They do some good things for the open source economy, but they also mistreat their users.

I think it’s a mistake to look at the free software movement as being a reaction against Microsoft or Google. It’s against the proprietary software world in general.

I don’t have any suggestions. I can’t think of any proprietary app good enough that I’d give up control of my computing for. However, consider objective requirements rather than subjective terms like good. What do you use the proprietary app for, why are existing free alternatives not sufficient, and can a free app be made that satisfies those requirements?

I’m also not too happy with this framing of the free software movement. The goal of the software freedom movement is to empower users with the freedom to use, modify, and share the software; that free software projects end up being alternatives to proprietary software products (“paid” is irrelevant) is more or less a consequence of people scratching their own itch. Maybe the fact that GNU and Linux started out as attempts to clone the proprietary Unix operating system furthered this view.

I don’t think it’s helpful to look at free software projects as being “alternatives” to popular proprietary software, because this means that even the best free software will forever be in the shadow of its proprietary counterparts. For example, if you have a proprietary program X and a free program Y that does 70% of what X does, you’ll be inclined to judge Y unfavorably - but if that 70% covers what you need from program X, then program Y is an acceptable replacement for you.

This app is actually free (as in freedom) and not merely gratis.

https://github.com/bitwarden/authenticator-android

Everyone who has an Android phone “uses Linux without the command line.” Your question, however, seems to be “is it possible to play Windows games on Debian without the command line” (edit: or, more broadly, “how suitable is Debian as a Windows replacement”) which is not the same question.

F-Droid has high inclusion standards (not high enough IMO but apparently too high for many Android developers). If a project isn’t in F-Droid and has no interest in being in F-Droid I consider it a red flag, but it’s crucial to find out if an issue has been opened and what the project’s response on that issue is. Sometimes it’s just because the developer(s) haven’t gotten around to it yet, but other times it’s because there’s a proprietary component that can’t be easily removed.

For example on this app (2fas) the reason it’s not on F-Droid is apparently because it uses Google cloud messaging (FCM) and there’s no interest in developing a version without. https://github.com/twofas/2fas-android/issues/14

Unfortunately with the security FUD against F-Droid peddled in part by PrivacyGuides and other organizations (which Obtainium and its fanbase happily help spread) there is decreasing interest even in using, let alone developing for, this repository.

AFAIK on Android it has a hard dependency on Google services. I don’t mind installing proprietary stuff to my work profile for the express purposes of work but that requires modifying my system to accommodate this specific app and that’s a step too far for my personal device. So I use a free software option (Aegis) instead.

edit: if for some reason I really did need MS Authenticator and not any old TOTP app, I would procure a googled device specifically for work rather than install google or microG into my personal device.

On the one hand, anything that acknowledges Android as being a Linux system is welcome.

On the other hand… ugh, user-agent strings.

Android emulation works better on it because the difference between Linux and Android is not that big

To be clear, the difference between Linux and Android is about the same as the difference between Linux and Fedora, in that they are both Linuxes. That’s why this works, and why the reverse (running GNU/Linux apps and even entire systems on Android) is possible as well.

There is, I believe, a fundamental misunderstanding as to what exactly a site like Stack Overflow is. It’s not a forum; there’s no such thing as “your posts.” It’s more like Wikipedia, as in a collaborative question-and-answer site, or a knowledgebase. Each question and answer can be edited like a mini wiki page. They aren’t “yours” any more than the Wikipedia page you created ten years ago is; you contributed it to the commons, so (at least in theory) you don’t have the right to take it back.

Whether whatever "Open"AI is doing is right is another question, of course. But, I don’t think destroying or poisoning the commons to strike back at it is any helpful either; it feels like “destroying it to save it.”

I would certainly hope so. Stack Overflow content is Creative Commons licensed, so the argument is basically that the GDPR would take precedence over the CC license grant. It’d be scary if GDPR could be weaponized against forks of free software projects in this manner.

There’s a certain irony, I think - the original free software movement was based on ensuring the users’ freedom to use, modify, and share software. “Open source” came about as a “business friendly” rebranding of Stallman’s movement (see Open source misses the point). Naturally, being friendly to business doesn’t mean business will be friendly back. That is to say, I acknowledge the unhealthy relationship between “business friendly open source” and the proprietary software industry.

That said, it should be extremely obvious that most hardline free software supporters like Richard Stallman and Drew DeVault (https://drewdevault.com/2021/01/20/FOSS-is-to-surrender-your-monopoly.html) are far from “corporate bootlickers” the latter of which even runs an (actual) free software company (and yet also started this community fork of Redis).

If you can’t make money from free software then feel free to sell proprietary software instead. What we take issue with is the attempt to co-opt the open source label, the attacks on real free software/open source, and (especially in this thread) the incessant name calling and accusations of bootlickery (while also characterizing anyone who pushes back as being “toxic”). Maybe we’re not just simping for Amazon here, maybe we actually see the forest for the trees and recognize the dangers of normalizing fauxpen source licenses.

Damn this community is getting really toxic.

You’re upset that a community called “open source” is pushing back against an attempt to co-opt the open source label? In my view this attempt is highly insidious and far worse than one corporate actor “stealing” (i.e. using) an open source project. These projects were all true free software before pulling the rug on the community and switching to a fauxpen source license, which makes it even worse - if these were proprietary from the beginning no one would have cared, but also fewer people would have contributed, because it doesn’t feel as good doing volunteer work for a proprietary product.

I agree there needs to be a mechanism in place for free software developers to be financially compensated but if you’re changing the license so that it’s no longer free software then it’s just proprietary software under some faux “open” label, at which point you might just drop the pretense of being “open” at all - just admit you’re a proprietary software company that puts your financial interest ahead of the community’s.

We already have a perfectly good term for this sort of licensing model:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proprietary_software