It's not very important but what are you referring to with "it is not" ? AOSP is Android (it's in the name) so I don't get it. Are you talking about blobs re Pixel devices?
Well. I do get your point and I am aware of the situation and how Google pivoted away from a truly open source OS by systematically moving components like the keyboard to separate closed source apps. The fact remains though that it's Android Open Source Project where all Android systems are based on. It's become sort of a GNU/Linux kind of distinction where the "certified" Android is AOSP + Google. Though the situation is not that clear because there are other Android based phones that do not contain the Google layer but are still Android.
> Though the situation is not that clear because there are other Android based phones that do not contain the Google layer but are still Android.
Which ones? I'm pretty sure that being "Android" means that you are certified by Google. You cannot sell an Android device if it's not certified by Google.
> It's become sort of a GNU/Linux kind of distinction where the "certified" Android is AOSP + Google
It depends on the context. If someone asks you "are you using Windows or Linux?", answering "I'm using GNU/Linux" is a way to show that you are that kind of people. But if someone asks you what userland you are using, then suddenly it makes sense to make a distinction between GNU and, say, busybox.
When someone asks me if I have and iPhone or Android, I say Android (even though I am running GrapheneOS). But when we're talking specifically about an alternative to Android that builds upon AOSP, then I think it makes sense to make a distinction. There is a whole (niche) market of AOSP-based alternatives to Android, that users choose specifically because they are not Android. When we talk about that, it makes sense to use the right words.
Yeah, it is.
It is not. GrapheneOS is AOSP-based.
But yeah, same binary blob issues for firmwares, but Linux on Mobile has the same issues.
It's not very important but what are you referring to with "it is not" ? AOSP is Android (it's in the name) so I don't get it. Are you talking about blobs re Pixel devices?
No, I really meant that AOSP is not Android. Android builds on top of AOSP. I elaborated here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47047167
Well. I do get your point and I am aware of the situation and how Google pivoted away from a truly open source OS by systematically moving components like the keyboard to separate closed source apps. The fact remains though that it's Android Open Source Project where all Android systems are based on. It's become sort of a GNU/Linux kind of distinction where the "certified" Android is AOSP + Google. Though the situation is not that clear because there are other Android based phones that do not contain the Google layer but are still Android.
> Though the situation is not that clear because there are other Android based phones that do not contain the Google layer but are still Android.
Which ones? I'm pretty sure that being "Android" means that you are certified by Google. You cannot sell an Android device if it's not certified by Google.
> It's become sort of a GNU/Linux kind of distinction where the "certified" Android is AOSP + Google
It depends on the context. If someone asks you "are you using Windows or Linux?", answering "I'm using GNU/Linux" is a way to show that you are that kind of people. But if someone asks you what userland you are using, then suddenly it makes sense to make a distinction between GNU and, say, busybox.
When someone asks me if I have and iPhone or Android, I say Android (even though I am running GrapheneOS). But when we're talking specifically about an alternative to Android that builds upon AOSP, then I think it makes sense to make a distinction. There is a whole (niche) market of AOSP-based alternatives to Android, that users choose specifically because they are not Android. When we talk about that, it makes sense to use the right words.