People can't invoke the name "Linux" and exclude Ubuntu when it suits their narrative. So what I said is perfectly reasonable.

All poodles are dogs, not all dogs are poodles.

Using 'dogs' and 'poodles' interchangeably subconsciously implies that all/most dogs are poodles.

I think the big difference here is the relative mindshare of Windows in the Windows ecosystem (100%) vs the share of Ubuntu in the Linux ecosystem (popular and dominiant, but not 100%).

A very small portion of the Linux community made the decision to put the launcher ads in, a large chunk of the community made a very loud fuss, and the feature was removed.

> People can't invoke the name "Linux" and exclude Ubuntu when it suits their narrative.

Why not? Ubuntu (along with Red Hat & others) is a commercial distribution of Linux, but it's not the only Linux. Users who care about their freedom & privacy don't use Ubuntu, because it includes proprietary drivers & does things like phone home.

Users of distros such as Debian, OTOH, do care about those things, and I think it's very fair for us to note that we find the behaviour of Microsoft recently to be quite remarkably sad.

Of course you can. Why do you think they can't? Just because a company is shipping a Linux distribution which has some less than pleasant defaults that suddenly taints all of Linux?

If I start selling beer with piss in it, does suddenly all beer taste like piss or just the one I'm selling?

You (and malikNF) are acting like Waterluvian was saying all Linux is bad, when that couldn't be further from the truth. Waterluvian is saying that simply choosing to switch to Linux doesn't automatically mean you'll get away from bullshit.