🇳🇱
Android is Linux for those who are working on Linux part of Android, i.e. kernel. Yeah, it sounds weird. :)
If you're developer, system administrator or just user, your existing experience with Android wouldn't be the same as the Linux you're expected to see. That's why people tend to not call Android a Linux.
It's stupid question. Android is Linux but it's not at the same time.
Most people dont differntiate between userland and kernel.
I disagree, most **windows** users dont differentiate, this is mostly because its compiled as one monolithic beast with little ability to swap out parts.
Us linux users, however, recognize for us the line in the sand isnt so clear. When we do not wish to differentiate between userland and kernel we use the name of the distrobution. When we do wish to make the distinction we say "Linux" if the userland isnt important to the context.
Well, please don't speak for all of us. I for my self say Linux-based, or just Unixoid, because that's what it is.
I hate it if someone calls a Linux Distro just "Linux" (like RMS), because sure, it contains a Linux Kernel, but it's the userland that's relevant to most. So you can just call it by the Name of the distro.
I mean, BSD isn't Unix, its a (Berkeley Software) Distribution of it, and almost nobody calls a BSD just Unix.
But anyhow, I also don't like the term GNU/Linux, because nowdays, most userland software isn't GNU anymore.
I am not speaking for everyone, I am only speaking for people who say "I run linux", such as myself. If you use additional qualifiers then you are not part of the group I describe obviously.
My point is that "GNU" is not descriptive of the userland. It only describes one organization that contributes to the userland out of many other non-gnu userland components...
As such linux refers to the kernel, the distro refers to the kernel + userland.
When you say "linux based" all you are saying is the same as me with more words "I have a linux kernel and some other unspecified software that runs on top of it"
Sure thing, but there are just to much people outthere who just say *something* runs Linux. Which is technically correct, but that's not with what they interact if they open a Browser, or run a Program.
Because if I would code a Kernel that has mostly the same Hardware support and the same syscalls, I could just change the Linux Kernel, and they would even notice.
(that is btw the one and only rule by Torvalds: Linux devs don't break Userland)
Whether they notice it or see it doesnt change what it is.
Point is saying GNU/Linux is rather pointless.. it would be like saying "I run Chrome/Linux" as a way of suggesting you run chrome for your web browser just because most of what you see when you sit behind a computer is your web browser.
Yes you could replace the linux kernel and your system would look exactly the same. Despite appearences however you'd no longer have a linux system.
Well, I for my self use mostly other programs than a webbrowser (at work I mostly use my Terminal emulator
)You are right, it wouldn't be a linux system, but it would be a unixoid system, just like macOS/OSX and all the BSDs (and minix ^^)
@miup Same meaning yes, more commonly used though.
