[archduck]

How charming. Everybody loves having their language use corrected sarcastically.

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.

…

[Maursault]

Looks to me like it's being used to exclude. If it is described as a Linux something, it is not anything other than.

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.