What are you talking about? It's a Golang program for Linux/Unix
https://github.com/cheat/cheat/blob/master/cmd/cheat/main.go
https://github.com/cheat/cheat/blob/master/cmd/cheat/main.go
No. That's idiotic reasoning. Go is not a Linux programming language no more than C++ or Javascript is. Even if Go was developed on Linux, it still just a programming language; it is not owned by Linux nor is it in kernel space, and it runs on DragonFly BSD, FreeBSD, macOS, NetBSD, OpenBSD, Plan 9, Solaris, and Windows. Why isn't it instead a Windows command? Because no one else does this. No one says, "a BSD command" or what have you. Shell commands run in the shell. Shells run on everything.
Why does everything Linux touches become described as Linux something?
That is what I am talking about, Linux entitlement: if Linux runs it, it is a Linux thing, regardless of whether it was developed 30 years before Linux existed or whether it was ported to every other OS previously or subsequently.
> It's a Golang program for Linux/Unix
Anyway, thanks for making my point. Unless you mean that Linux is UNIX, in which case there are some deeper issues here.[1]
But you should really read up on your English modifiers next time, because your point is based on a common vulgar-linguistic misconception. “Linux,” in this case, is plainly being used qualifyingly rather than classifyingly. It’s subsective, but ambiguous as to whether or not it’s intersective - but I think the answer to this is quite clear. Say we had to reformulate the noun phrase into a clause. Would we really come up with e.g. “The `cheat` command is Linux-specific” as the equivalent intended meaning? Or would it more likely be “The `cheat` command works on Linux”? The point is that the `cheat` command can be used in a Linux shell, not what scripting language it’s written in.
> Accuracy is not pedantic
This is the wrong attitude, my dude. Wrong, wrong, wrong. It’s probably intended to be light-hearted because it’s self-referential and self-contradictory (pragmatically, not semantically, as ironic humor does), but it’s still too close for comfort in this context. I know computer dudes who are like this for real. One graybeard almost had me saying fuck this when I was still starting out.
> No. That’s idiotic reasoning.
…
The language mistakes are being made constantly by those that only see or are aware of Linux. I want to call it the Linux hole, because anyone who is OS agnostic is never in that hole from which only Linux can be seen or talked about as though it were distinct and isolated from other similar OS, from which Linux was developed, not the other way around.
Could not resist.