}> even regression tests. People tend to forget that their favorite distros
}> isn't just "Linux" but a bunch of other stuff made around, and that it
}> does not really match other operating systems also labelled as being Linux.
}
} Yes. When I try to have a discussion with a client/customer and
} "Linux" comes up (as in, "Why should we use NetBSD? Why can't we
} just use Linux?"), I rarely encounter anyone who understands how
} *little* "Linux" actually is -- yet how much it will influence the
} (e.g., licensing of their) product!
}
} Unfortunately, there is no simple, intuitive parallel to draw to
} the PC world that just rolls off your tongue. Instead, you have
} to try to draw on parallels that migrate into the application
} domain (e.g., "OK, Bob, everyone in your organization runs Windows,
} right? But, do they all use MSWord for their document preparation
} tool? Or, do some folks use WordPerfect, FrameMaker, etc.?").
} Most people are savvy enough to realize that these *are* applications
} so the analogy fails to take hold in their mind. There's nothing
} *big* enough (in that world) to put the issue into proper perspective.
I typically use an automobile analogy. I consider the kernel to
be the engine of an operating system. Linux by itself is useless. It
would be just like having a car engine sitting in the middle of your
garage floor (it doesn't even have a starter). The distributions are
the vehicles (every variety from mopeds to Mac trucks; econobox to
luxoboat; manual transmission, automatic transmission; left-hand drive,
right-hand drive; etc., but they all have the same engine).