RTFA (or your comment's parent) - He describes Apple's web-apps fiasco with the iPhone as a shit sandwich (and links to his lengthy essay on said sandwich) in this very article, which is 90% about Chrome OS.
I didn't know there was any question that Daring Fireball was an Apple advocacy site. A large focus of this article was the way in which Chrome OS couldn't be considered Linux because it won't use X. There are other non-X linux distributions so his argument seemed odd to me. Given OSX's relationship to BSD it seems to an argument born from rationalising the rebranding of BSD to OSX. I don't think Google is going to feel any need to distance itself from Linux because it is not planning on selling Chrome OS.
Having said all that for sake of clarity (if there is any in that paragraph) I'll try not to comment on future Apple stories on this site, it doesn't seem productive.
It's more than just not using X that will make Chrome OS "not a Linux." Describing an operating system distribution as "Linux" implies an entire eco-system of software that Chrome OS will probably not have.
How many non-X Linux distributions fit his description?
"For use as a desktop PC operating system, all the various “Linux distributions” are basically the same thing: variations of Gnome or KDE sitting atop the ancient X Window System."
It seems like Chrome OS will be the only non-X distribution which is a serious option for widespread desktop use. There are non-X distributions, but not desktop non-X distributions. If you want to dispute by adding Xfce or whatnot to Gnome and KDE, go ahead, but I don't think it's relevant to his main point: the mainstream desktop Linux distributions are all pretty much the same experience.
