I think this needs to be stressed as much as possible. Linq2SQL, and other deviations that generate an object model based on a relational database are NOT ORMs.
ORM: Object-Relational Mapper
"Mapper" is the key missing ingredient with solutions like Linq2SQL. The key driving concept of an ORM is to allow you to develop an object model in a manner that meets the business needs of an application, or suite of applications, completely independently of the data source or sources serving that business. This doesn't mean that a product tied to a particular RDBMS has to be any less of an ORM than one that can serve a number of RDBMS; that isn't the point of the mapping. The point of the mapping element is that the views in your application can be served by domain objects designed specifically for the purpose of serving those views, irregardless of the data structure behind the data of that view. If it helps, think of earlier implementations of Views within an RDBMS, or stored procedures that were designed to flatten and translate highly relational data into a data form designed to serve a specific purpose. An ORM takes over for that role.
Linq2SQL in no way does any of this. A more accurate acronym for Linq2SQL and the like would be a ROG, or Relational Object Generator. Linq2SQL generates objects in accordance to the relational model within the database for the application to consume. Not that this approach does not have its merits for certain situations, but it is a completely different barrel of fish.
Any "ORM" that purportedly generates an object model from a database is flat-out not an ORM. There is no mapping when the relationships are 1-1 between objects and data tables; It's a generator.