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

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.

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.

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.

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

Everyone can write a new version of the GPL.

The standard GPL permission statement explicitly clarifies that the license is “as published by the Free Software Foundation” so any later version of the license has to come from the FSF.

This program is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

The reason for the “or later” clause is to allow the FSF to update the GPL in response to flaws that are discovered. The “or later” clause is controversial because it effectively allows the FSF to change the licensing terms of any software licensed under such a clause, and so some developers who don’t trust the FSF with this authority omit this clause. Famously, Linux is licensed only under GPLv2 with no or-later option (Linus has been a vocal opponent of GPLv3)

You do realize the whole discussion is about what terms to use for differentiating between GPL-like “restrictive” licenses and BSD-like “permissive” ones? Saying that both are “conditional” really doesn’t help anyone.

That’s fair, I suppose - but going back to the word restrictive, you could also frame the requirement for attribution as a “restriction.”

DeVault suggests the term “reciprocal” at the end of his post. Another term often used is “share-alike.” Both of these terms, I think, more accurately hint at the exact conditions of the grant without negatively framing it as a “restriction.”

That’s true of any free software license, and as far as I know most formerly-free fauxpen source projects were licensed under a permissive license, because the intent was to be “business friendly” open source projects.

In fact, copyleft actually has an advantage here; other members of the community can sell your work, but they are also required to respect the copyleft. Stronger copyleft licenses like the Affero GPL even protect against proprietarizing free software as a “cloud” service, but “business friendly” projects don’t want it.

What word that doesn’t offend you should I use to describe this fact?

Conditional, as in you are free to incorporate the GPL code into your work on the condition that you preserve the freedoms downstream. By default you have no rights to distribute; the GPL does not take anything away, but it grants conditional rights. A restrictive license, like your proprietary EULA, would take away rights that the user would normally have.

Whether or not proprietary EULA’s are enforceable is a matter of dispute; see Software user’s rights (D. J. Bernstein). Regardless, as Bernstein notes, this default set of rights does not include distribution, which is governed by copyright law. Free software licenses such as the GPL are copyright licenses and grant limited rights of distribution. Note that even most “permissive” licenses are by definition conditional as they include at least the requirement for attribution.

It started 40 years ago, when a man was not allowed to fix his printer. We didn’t have the word enshittification at the time but even then it was understood what happens when technology abuses its users in order to enrich its creators.

Common DeVault W

In my experience Intel graphics have better compatibility with Linux-libre. I’m unsure about Linux-libre on AMD; according to at least one report it requires firmware blobs, which I’d rather avoid.

(I’m aware that firmware blobs are unavoidable with modern-ish hardware but I’d prefer to avoid as many of them as possible)