> they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer
That's literally what I was asking. Thank you for replying with your opinion on the subject, it's ridiculous that it's taken this long for someone to say what they actually think instead of just arguing about compiling kernels and a lack of Scottish people.
In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop. In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop. I understand there are other opinions, but when I think Linux on the desktop, I think Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, etc. Even the Wikipedia page about Linux on the desktop says "The term Linux adoption often overlooks operating systems or other uses such as in Chrome OS that also use the Linux kernel (but have almost nothing else in common, not even the name – Linux – usually applied"
So there is definitely room for debate. But apparently not on this forum.
"In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop."
Agreed, since it does not (usually) run on a desktop or laptop computer.
"In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop."
And why not? That's the point that I've been trying to coax out with no success. What makes it anything but Linux on the desktop?
Is it the fact that it doesn't provide low-level access to the system by default? If so, then why is that a requirement for a desktop system? It seems to not be in line with how the vast majority of desktop computer users actually use their computers. It would also exclude Windows and macOS from being desktop operating systems, since they're (IMO) just as hard to work with on a low level (if not harder) than ChromeOS (but not as hard as Android or iOS).
Is it the fact that everything's web based? If so - again - why does that matter? Who cares what executable format is used or what programming language is used for user-facing software? (Of course, this "fact" ain't entirely true: https://developer.chrome.com/native-client/overview)
Is it the fact that the Linux name is not used? If so, then by that logic Ubuntu is not a "real" desktop Linux system, since https://www.ubuntu.com/desktop doesn't mention Linux anywhere (except for the developer subpage, where it's mentioned as a development feature).
The Wikipedia quote explains the perception's existence. It doesn't explain why that perception of "ChromeOS ain't a real Linux on the desktop" exists or by what criteria it's not a "real" Linux desktop. The fact that it uses the Linux kernel is the only thing that matters for the phrase "desktop Linux", since - again - we're talking about desktop Linux, not desktop GNU or desktop KDE or desktop GNOME or desktop whatever other software.
That's literally what I was asking. Thank you for replying with your opinion on the subject, it's ridiculous that it's taken this long for someone to say what they actually think instead of just arguing about compiling kernels and a lack of Scottish people.
In my opinion Android is not Linux on the desktop. In my opinion ChromeOS is not Linux on the desktop. I understand there are other opinions, but when I think Linux on the desktop, I think Ubuntu, Debian, Slackware, Red Hat, etc. Even the Wikipedia page about Linux on the desktop says "The term Linux adoption often overlooks operating systems or other uses such as in Chrome OS that also use the Linux kernel (but have almost nothing else in common, not even the name – Linux – usually applied"
So there is definitely room for debate. But apparently not on this forum.