Earlier quoted context omitted.
>[maybe] there's no such thing as a "real" Linux desktop. That may be the simplest answer, but when people talk about "the year of Linux on the desktop" they're talking about something in particular, right? Or does any Linux system count? Android smart TVs? Routers? Mall kiosks? Car infotainment systems? Bluray players where the only interface is a Java program? Or are we only counting systems where we can drop to a…
"when people talk about 'the year of Linux on the desktop' they're talking about something in particular, right?" Yes: they're talking about a computer running a desktop environment on Linux on a desktop or laptop computer. ChromeOS meets all those criteria. Android would meet all those criteria should it ever be widely deployed on laptops or desktops. So: "It's a simple question: at what point do you differentiate '…
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.