Mikkel L. Ellertson wrote: > Björn Persson wrote: > > Should I take that to mean that your concept of "Linux" is the same as > > Thomas Cameron's, whatever his concept really is? > > 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. Well, that still seems to put you somewhere in the "everything and the kitchen sink is Linux" camp. > 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. Not only that, but by using a too generic term you might say something that isn't true, because it's only true for some of the things that the generic term covers. > For other discussions, being more specific will actually > make the discussion harder. I don't see how using terms that are too generic would make discussing easier. If you mean using terms that are more specific than intended, then that's of course not optimal. It may of course be that some people find it harder to use the appropriate terminology because they then have to actually think about what they mean, but once they do that I'm sure they'll find that the discussion works much better. Björn Persson -- fedora-list mailing list fedora-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-list
