He wants people to call GNU/Linux a system composed of components from GNU and the Linux kernel. He considers the GNU part essential. He also wants that so people hear about GNU and free software, because, well, that's the whole point of his work. Whether it is a good strategy or whether you don't find it convenient is irrelevant. If you use any project, it is fair that their author expect due credit.
I do say Linux instead of GNU/Linux, but it does not make it right. I do speak about Free software though. And I will certainly not argue against one of the author of GNU/Linux on how he wants people to name the project. You can give your opinion, but show some humility and respect. What you write as truths are in fact just your opinion, to which I happen to not agree with.
Windows is not comparable to the Linux kernel, the Windows NT kernel is, and your system is full of GNU, whether you like it or not. Starting from the libc, the bootloader and many other important component. Nobody argues about how which or which part of your system is essential or not. Everything is useful and needed. That is just not the point.
And Linus is not above RMS, and RMS is not above Linus. No authority is involved.
And glibc. And the coreutils, findutils, make, screen, bash, gzip, and grep. Those are just the things I used in the last 10 minutes. Other notables off the top of my head include flex, bison, guile, and emacs.
You are selling the FSF extremely short if you draw the line at GCC.
https://www.reddit.com/r/copypasta/comments/7lt7i0/no_richar... https://pastebin.com/hjagCZpK
KnowYourMeme.com claims it's from 2011. I don't want to spend time checking it, but I remember seeing this copypasta during my entire experience in reddit (since 2014/2015 ish)
If RMS would worry too much about bothering others, he would never have started the Free Software movement.
But GCC and related stuff like binutils are not the only important code contributions from GNU. Glibc and bash are two that immediately come to mind. Certainly there are others.
(Though before the late 1990s Linux had its own non gnu libc..)
Following are some reasons for you to mull over, including some already answered in your FAQ.
One guy, Linus Torvalds, used GCC to make his operating system (yes, Linux is an OS -- more on this later). He named it 'Linux' with a little help from his friends. Why doesn't he call it GNU/Linux? Because he wrote it, with more help from his friends, not you. You named your stuff, I named my stuff -- including the software I wrote using GCC -- and Linus named his stuff. The proper name is Linux because Linus Torvalds says so. Linus has spoken. Accept his authority. To do otherwise is to become a nag. You don't want to be known as a nag, do you?
(An operating system) != (a distribution). Linux is an operating system. By my definition, an operating system is that software which provides and limits access to hardware resources on a computer. That definition applies whereever you see Linux in use. However, Linux is usually distributed with a collection of utilities and applications to make it easily configurable as a desktop system, a server, a development box, or a graphics workstation, or whatever the user needs. In such a configuration, we have a Linux (based) distribution. Therein lies your strongest argument for the unwieldy title 'GNU/Linux' (when said bundled software is largely from the FSF). Go bug the distribution makers on that one. Take your beef to Red Hat, Mandrake, and Slackware. At least there you have an argument. Linux alone is an operating system that can be used in various applications without any GNU software whatsoever. Embedded applications come to mind as an obvious example.
Next, even if we limit the GNU/Linux title to the GNU-based Linux distributions, we run into another obvious problem. XFree86 may well be more important to a particular Linux installation than the sum of all the GNU contributions. More properly, shouldn't the distribution be called XFree86/Linux? Or, at a minimum, XFree86/GNU/Linux? Of course, it would be rather arbitrary to draw the line there when many other fine contributions go unlisted. Yes, I know you've heard this one before. Get used to it. You'll keep hearing it until you can cleanly counter it.
You seem to like the lines-of-code metric. There are many lines of GNU code in a typical Linux distribution. You seem to suggest that (more LOC) == (more important). However, I submit to you that raw LOC numbers do not directly correlate with importance. I would suggest that clock cycles spent on code is a better metric. For example, if my system spends 90% of its time executing XFree86 code, XFree86 is probably the single most important collection of code on my system. Even if I loaded ten times as many lines of useless bloatware on my system and I never excuted that bloatware, it certainly isn't more important code than XFree86. Obviously, this metric isn't perfect either, but LOC really, really sucks. Please refrain from using it ever again in supporting any argument.
Last, I'd like to point out that we Linux and GNU users shouldn't be fighting among ourselves over naming other people's software. But what the heck, I'm in a bad mood now. I think I'm feeling sufficiently obnoxious to make the point that GCC is so very famous and, yes, so very useful only because Linux was developed. In a show of proper respect and gratitude, shouldn't you and everyone refer to GCC as 'the Linux compiler'? Or at least, 'Linux GCC'? Seriously, where would your masterpiece be without Linux? Languishing with the HURD?
If there is a moral buried in this rant, maybe it is this:
Be grateful for your abilities and your incredible success and your considerable fame. Continue to use that success and fame for good, not evil. Also, be especially grateful for Linux' huge contribution to that success. You, RMS, the Free Software Foundation, and GNU software have reached their current high profiles largely on the back of Linux. You have changed the world. Now, go forth and don't be a nag.
Thanks for listening.