What are you running, Alpine?

I'm running Debian with KDE. The GNU tools are installed but by weight they're nowhere near the majority of the code on the system, to say nothing of the components I actually use. So calling that machine "GNU/Linux" instead of "KDE/X.org/Linux", given the relative importance of the individual components, would be stupid.

Fortunately, we have the nearly universally understood "Linux" instead, and weird specializations like Android can be called something else.

I agree that "naming all the things" is a bit silly. But I think GNU/Linux indicates Linux kernel, GNU libc, compiled with gcc -- which is actually kind of useful information. It doesn't say anything about the Graphical UI (if any). Similarly I think Android/Linux is useful, because it indicates something about what kind of (binary) software you can expect will work - and what will not.

I also happen to think distinctions such as Debian/kFreeBSD (a Debian distribution based around the FreeBSD kernel, as opposed to (just) the regular FreeBSD user-land) are informative.

I'm not sure what one should/would call a Linux distribution with an alternative (non-GNU) libc that relied on a non-GNU compiler chain... Probably "brandname"/Linux or "function"/Linux (eg: Linux Router Project or something)...

This isn't a technical thing for any of the major proponents, though. It's a marketing thing, because after the spectacular failure of Hurd GNU was relegated to effectively a sideline (a useful one, for sure, but a sideline). I get a lot more direct and personal value out of code not provided by GNU than I do by code provided by GNU. I don't think they merit top billing, and I don't think the two decades of holding one's breath and turning purple deserves a reward.

Look, the Linux kernel itself uses the GNU GPL, so GNU probably is the most important factor in all of this. Linux kernel under a proprietary license or even under BSD-style, you probably would never have heard of it. At any rate, basically nobody thinks HURD is useful anymore. RMS thinks time spent on HURD is a waste since it is totally unneeded now that we have the Linux kernel. GNU is a political movement about software freedom as much or more than a particular set of software, and even KDE is licensed with a GNU license. etc.

"Look," the creator of Linux could not give the faintest fart about GNU and has said he'd use a different license if he could. Why should a political movement that specializes in lousy marketing campaigns and haranguing be given a nod?

I do like that attempt, though. "Well, they used a license that GNU wrote, so GNU should get top billing!" Do you want to talk about how well Apache/Dropwizard and PostgreSQL/PostgreSQL work with Apache/Kotlin on GNU/OpenJDK8?

> has said he'd use a different license if he could

Citation?

A constantly repeated quote from Linus is precisely: "Making Linux GPL'd was definitely the best thing I ever did." from a 1997 interview according to https://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Linus_Torvalds

I've never heard Torvalds say anything regretful about using GPL. When I heard him in person just last year, he clarified his dislike of GPLv3 while emphasizing his preference and like of GPLv2.

And anyway, I didn't say anything about "top billing". The fact is, Linux itself is, admittedly, absurd billing for Linus given that he is the leader of the kernel project but is among thousands of people who make it happen. GNU is not a term that credits Richard Stallman. GNU is a community project with a particular political aim. And my point all along was just about some practical way to differentiate Android from the other primary Linux-based systems, and "GNU/Linux" is a way to do that.