> On the subset of Linux distros that use systemd, rather.
Worth noting that Fedora, RHEL/CentOS/et al, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch and derivatives use systemd, so odds are pretty high if you use "Linux" you also get systemd
That's true; I think the only major user-facing Linux distros without systemd (or with non-systemd versions) these days are Gentoo, Void, Alpine, and Android (which may or may not count). Embedded stuff is probably more of a mixture (openwrt doesn't use systemd, yocto and buildroot can use it but optionally), and firecracker feels closer to embedded than desktop but both ends are interesting. I dunno, I mostly just object to conflating "Linux" with systemd even if it is the most popular option (but bear in mind that I have strong opinions about "Linux" vs "GNU/Linux", so YYMV;]).
I'd just like to interject for a moment. What you're referring to as Linux, is in fact, systemd/Linux, or as I've recently taken to calling it, systemd plus Linux.
I mean, I would unironically be fine with people saying systemd/Linux when that's what they're talking about; it's a subset of GNU/Linux and points at what we're talking about pretty easily and specifically...
Android seems to be the most popular Linux distro on the planet, though? Does it use systemd? I was under the impression that it doesn't, but as it often is, I might be wrong.
Technically Android runs the Linux kernel, but I wouldn't consider it a "Linux distro" in anywhere near the same sense as I would an Ubuntu or Fedora, etc. The vast majority of Android users don't even know they're running the Linux kernel, which is not true of "distros."
I would imagine the vast majority of OpenWRT users don't know they're running the Linux kernel. It was installed by the manufacturer or the operator. Assuming that's true, does it make OpenWRT not a distro?
I understand your usage of the word "distro". I think it's useful, but also quite a bit misleading (for example, Wikipedia[1] lists Android as a distro).
Perhaps there ought to be another word for distributions of Linux that require user to take active part in either replacing a manufacturers' choice or setting it up from scratch on an otherwise "empty" system. But I don't know what it would be.
> I would imagine the vast majority of OpenWRT users don't know they're running the Linux kernel. It was installed by the manufacturer or the operator. Assuming that's true, does it make OpenWRT not a distro?
My gut is to not consider OpenWRT a distro since it's usually just the software part of a network appliance and many/most users don't know they're running it, although I concede that it does qualify in most senses as a distro: downloadable image, a package manager, is a complete product that uses the linux kernel, etc.
I fully concede that my opinion of "what makes a distro" is subjective and arbitrary. It's very much the Linux distro version of Stewart's test for obscenity[1] and is a pretty unhelpful standard which value is quite low :-)
Worth noting that Fedora, RHEL/CentOS/et al, Debian, Ubuntu, Arch and derivatives use systemd, so odds are pretty high if you use "Linux" you also get systemd