Microsoft is a kernel contributor, and Android isn't really linux

http://go.linuxfoundation.org/who-writes-linux-2012

Microsoft's contribution to the Linux kernel, is, AFAIK, limited to device drivers that make Linux run better under Hyper-V. So, they are not really improving Linux - they are using it as a bait for you to run your Linux workloads on your Windows servers, using Microsoft's virtualization technology.

Intel's contribution to the Linux kernel, is, AFAIK, limited to device drivers that make Linux run better with Intel hardware. So, they are not really improving Linux - they are using it as a bait for you to run your Linux workloads on your Intel servers, using Intel's hardware technology.

Qualcomm's contribution to the Linux kernel, is, AFAIK, limited to software that make Linux run better with Qualcomm SoC. So, they are not really improving Linux - they are using it as a bait for you to run your Linux workloads on your Qualcomm phones, using Qualcomm's hardware technology.

> Intel's contribution to the Linux kernel, is, AFAIK, limited to device drivers that make Linux run better with Intel hardware.

No, not really.

I'm waiting for the part where you say more than three words to support your claim.

The amount of words is a poor metric. And sorry to point out but your original statement is not supported either, so burden of proof is on you.

To make it easier though I can point you in direction of Alan Cox commits around 2010-2013 and his work on TTY subsystem in particular.

Android is Linux. It is not GNU/Linux.

Do you see RMS's point now?

Android isn't really linux? Please expand.

To the extent that Linux is technically just the kernel and fundamental services, Android uses Linux but is not itself "Linux".

To the extent that Linux implies "GNU Linux", i.e. a whole operating system and a broadly interoperable and source compatible set of *nix services, Android is not Linux any more than iOS is FreeBSD.

Then you could argue that any embedded device that runs the Linux kernel is not Linux because it doesn't use the GNU userland. I think its splitting hairs, anything that runs the Linux kernel is by definition, Linux. You can replace the GNU userland with anything you want, it doesn't suddenly make it a completely new operating system.

Sounds like the argument is a question of definitions - does "operating system" mean kernel, userland, or both? You argue that changing the userland doesn't change the OS. I could counterargue that Debian/kFreeBSD is the "same operating system" with a different kernel.

RMS believes that userland makes an OS, because he wrote a userland. Linus believes that kernel makes an OS, because he wrote a kernel. Calling Android "Linux" is like calling Windows 8 "Windows NT", i.e. correct if you're talking about kernels and wrong otherwise.

Linux is a kernel. Android uses the Linux kernel. WTF are you talking about?

The grandparents post was probably a play on the old "But does it run linux" meme from slashdot.