that old GNU/Linux argument

[Anders Karlsson]

* Björn Persson <listor3.rombobeorn at tdcpost.se> [20080720 19:52]:
[snip: lots of hairsplitting and otherwise ludicrous statements]
> 
> 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"?

I have a hard time understanding if you are actually serious, or if
you are just taking the mick with these types of statements.

Is it really so hard to grasp that the term "Linux" can (and does)
mean different things depending on context, who you are talking to,
and the counterparts technical savvy?

I also would like to know why you have the absolute fascination and
the palpable need to obtain a totally absolute definition of "Linux".

[snip: more hairsplitting]

/Anders