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

The most obvious difference going from Debian stable to GNU Guix is that Guix is a rolling release distro, not stable (in the Debian sense) at all.

Package management is also very different as it's fundamentally a source based distro, although sometimes the build servers can provide prebuilt packages if they're available. Also, Guix has the concept of "profiles" which group sets of installed packages; typically, there is a system profile as well as a profile for each user, but users can also create their own separate profiles. This means that a user can install packages to their own profile without needing root permissions.

Profile updates are done in an atomic manner, such that changing the set of installed packages (installing, updating, or removing a package) actually creates a new generation of the profile, and it's possible to roll back to a previous generation if something breaks. This is true of the system as well as the user profile(s), of course. A profile generation can also be exported as a manifest, which can then be imported to create a profile generation on another system, allowing package management to be done in a declarative manner.

Finally, Guix has a commitment to ship only free software, and uses linux-libre as its kernel. Debian has a clear separation between free and non-free components but does ship non-free software, including firmware blobs, and I believe as of recently the installer provides them by default. There are unofficial Guix channels (=repositories) that provide these things.

I will continue to maintain that it is bitterly ironic for a product which is 95% based on free software to be so hostile to software freedom. They feel so entitled to take but don't want to give back, and they justify it by saying that that others will do the same thing they did if they do make it fully free.

A proprietary browser is a non-starter for me, especially when there are many free alternatives, even Chromium based ones. I'd take Ungoogled-Chromium on desktop or Cromite on mobile, heck I'd take Brave even.

Currently I run GNU Guix on my desktop, laptop, and servers. I like the dedication to software freedom and the way package management works. Before that I used Debian until 2019, Trisquel until 2014, and Ubuntu until around 2010. Debian and Trisquel are fine and I don't have anything against them, I just like the Guix package manager more. I've used Xfce with all of these (and before then, GNOME 2). I set it up the way I like it and it never changes.

I typically run LineageOS on my mobile devices, without microG or any proprietary apps. As I've said before my preferred OS would be some variant of GNU/Linux, preferably Guix as well, but LineageOS works well enough.

I run OpenWRT on my router, and had a previous router than ran LibreCMC (a variant of OpenWRT using Linux-libre).

Windows games are made for Windows so I prefer to use Windows for them. I don't particularly want to turn GNU/Linux into Windows, I think it deserves better than that.

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.

It's worth noting the reason why Molly isn't available on F-Droid proper: it's entirely F-Droid's decision. F-Droid policy requires that developers support (or do not oppose) inclusion in F-Droid, which Signal's developers haven't. Signal's developers are also hostile towards forks and do not want them interoperating with Signal. Thus, F-Droid does not allow Signal or any fork of Signal.

https://gitlab.com/fdroid/rfp/-/issues/2297

I am not really a fan of this decision, I don't think it's logical that an upstream can forbid a fork from being published anywhere - but that's F-Droid's call to make.

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.

I don't have any suggestions. I can't think of any proprietary app good enough that I'd give up control of my computing for. However, consider objective requirements rather than subjective terms like good. What do you use the proprietary app for, why are existing free alternatives not sufficient, and can a free app be made that satisfies those requirements?

I'm also not too happy with this framing of the free software movement. The goal of the software freedom movement is to empower users with the freedom to use, modify, and share the software; that free software projects end up being alternatives to proprietary software products ("paid" is irrelevant) is more or less a consequence of people scratching their own itch. Maybe the fact that GNU and Linux started out as attempts to clone the proprietary Unix operating system furthered this view.

I don't think it's helpful to look at free software projects as being "alternatives" to popular proprietary software, because this means that even the best free software will forever be in the shadow of its proprietary counterparts. For example, if you have a proprietary program X and a free program Y that does 70% of what X does, you'll be inclined to judge Y unfavorably - but if that 70% covers what you need from program X, then program Y is an acceptable replacement for you.