I don’t know if grouping disparate projects under the “community” label has any worthwhile benefit. Given the label is meant to classify related operating systems, the label should provide an accurate description of the basis of the system. A simpler solution would be to just say GNU/Linux is a subcategory of Linux (and maybe even sub-sub-categorize by package manager or init system or whatever makes the most sense). Similarly, I think Android and its derivatives are worthy of being its own classification of Linux operating system (as long as you don’t try to claim “it’s not real Linux” or whatever).

With regards to software compatibility, I think it’s rather the other way around - software written for “Linux” usually works on any POSIX operating system, and sometimes even Windows. Unless you’re talking about binary compatibility, which is meaningless in the Linux space anyway.

Why not also recognize systemd, or musl, or kde or gnome or any of the other millions of non GNU packages that are needed to make up a complete OS.

Unironically there might be some value in recognizing “systemd/Linux” as a subfamily of Linux operating systems.

And these days GNU makes up less and less of the core packages that most distros run anymore.

Linux makes up exactly one package on a so-called Linux system.

I feel like there’s a lot of FUD around this subject, because people bring it up as if it’s purely a negative without talking about the reasons why it’s done the way it is. The whole point of F-Droid is that it’s a repository (not a store) of free software applications. They have an inclusion policy forbidding proprietary code and dependencies, and in order to enforce this policy they have to build from publicly available source code, and in order to do so they need to sign the builds themselves. This means, yes, you are trusting F-Droid instead of the upstream developer - but given F-Droid has higher standards than upstream developers this is a tradeoff I am willing to make.

Reproducible builds solves this in a way that preserves the standards of F-Droid, however, “security peoples’” favored “alternatives” (such as Accrescent, Obtainium, and Google Play Store/Aurora Store) forego this entirely, showing they don’t either have a viable solution to offer or that they don’t really care about the problem that F-Droid is addressing to begin with.

Same reason anyone would use a dedicated provider-independent client instead of a proprietary web application locked into a single provider: less vendor lock-in, more local control, and so on.

Vivaldi’s target audience is people who don’t mind proprietary blobs as long as they are “good” or make things “work better.” Given that Vivaldi itself is essentially a proprietary blob combined with a Chromium backend this makes sense.

Icedove (Thunderbird) works well enough for me. Maybe the reason it’s “old fashioned” is because it works well enough that it doesn’t need to be changed that often.

In the proprietary software world we’re used to UI’s being redesigned on a regular basis for no user benefit.

If Valkey is the de facto successor of Redis, then maybe abandoning Redict is the right move. If he continued to put effort into Redict, people would just ask why is he wasting time with Redict when Valkey exists.

Note that I generally don’t think time put into free software is wasted, because once its put out into the commons it can be picked up and reused elsewhere - although in this particular case since Redict is licensed under LGPLv3 contributions made to it cannot be reused by Valkey which is licensed under the BSD license. One is, however, free to add their own contribution to both projects as neither requires a CLA, however both do require a Developer Certificate of Origin (DCO) https://codeberg.org/redict/redict/src/branch/main/CONTRIBUTING.md https://github.com/valkey-io/valkey/blob/unstable/CONTRIBUTING.md This is as far as I know an unusual case as generally forks use the same license allowing code to be freely exchanged between them.

GNU/Linux != Linux

Linux is a kernel

GNU/Linux is the GNU userland (tools and libraries) combined with the Linux kernel to form a complete operating system

Android is Linux but not GNU. So are Alpine, postmarketOS, and others I can’t think of

Linux is to an operating system as bread is to a sandwich… an essential component, but a slice of bread by itself does not make a sandwich make

Librewolf comes packaged by my distro (GNU Guix) so that’s what I use. I’m sure most “privacy” or “hardened” Firefoxes are more or less interchangeable. The only one that’s really noteworthy is GNU IceCat, because it’s more focused on software-freedom and includes the LibreJS addon, but I switched to Librewolf once it was packaged for Guix.

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.

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.

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)

Firstly, Captain Beyond is the name of a band that I’m fond of - although by far not my favorite one, ever.

However, it’s also somewhat aspirational. “Captain” I define as the sort of leader as in the captains of Star Trek, someone who leads by example, who makes-it-so, takes care of their people and their “ship” so-to-speak. Someone who is more of a steward than a boss. Someone who is first and foremost in command of themselves. “Beyond” refers to the aspiration to go further and achieve great things.

As I said it’s more aspirational than anything - I don’t think I do a very good job of living up to that moniker most of the time.