Björn Persson wrote:
No - just that I think the argument is equivalent is like complaining about someone calling a Mustang a car, instead of calling it a Ford Mustang. Calling a distribution Linux is less specific then calling it by the distribution name, but it is not less correct then calling a specific car by the generic name car.Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote:Björn Persson wrote:Fedora isn't Linux, it's a Linux distribution, but everyone calls all Linux distributions "Linux", so Fedora should be called "Linux" even though it isn't Linux? Is that what you're saying? Unfortunately that doesn't help much with defining what Linux *is*. Or do you mean that Fedora isn't *equal* to Linux, it's just *a* Linux, but everyone calls all Linuxes "Linux"?It is kind of like the difference between a car, a Ford, and a Mustang. A car does not have to be a Ford to be a car. A Ford doea not have to be a Mustang. But it is still correct to call a Mustang a car.Should I take that to mean that your concept of "Linux" is the same as Thomas Cameron's, whatever his concept really is?Björn Persson
Depending on exactly what you are talking about, you may need to be more specific, because the more generic term may not give enough details. For other discussions, being more specific will actually make the discussion harder.
Mikkel -- Do not meddle in the affairs of dragons, for thou art crunchy and taste good with Ketchup!
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
