You're viewing a single thread.
It would seem that GNU/Linux or Linux (whatever the user-accessing operating system is called) is the only OS that must mention its kernel. No one calls Windows the NT operating system, nor does anyone call Mac OS the Darwin operating system. So why should Linux be the exception?
When I think of GNU, I think of a project that had a very particular goal in mind: build an operating system that replaces Unix with entirely free software. The project got nearly all the way there, but before they got a usable kernel working, Torvalds licensed his kernel with the GPL. With the Linux kernel combined with GNU, we have an OS the GNU project set out to create. So why should Torvalds get all the credit? Without calling the OS GNU, most people don't even know how or why it came to be.
I could see a valid argument to just simply call the OS GNU. It was the name the original team gave the project to have a fully functional OS made with entirely free software. True, Torvalds didn't write Linux for GNU, but neither did the X Window System. A Kernel is essential for operation though, so I can see why the name GNU/Linux was proposed.
Maybe it just boils down to "Linux" simply sounding better when pronounced
Just like e.g. most people just say "velcro" and not "hook-and-loop" as the company Velcro itself wants people to call it.
And that's a tragedy because that convenience of pronunciation comes with the cost of losing credit for the group that started the whole thing. Because only "Linux" is used, many people think Linus Torvalds developed/invented the entire operating system.
Hook and loop being called Velcro doesn't hurt Velcro the same way because they still have all the credit for making it. The only problem they face is losing a trademark.
Perhaps it is a tragedy that we seem to have lost the GNU part. But in the end, the great unwashed masses get to decide what something is called.
Personally, I blame the Brits for this, (and NOT the French this time), because of their penchant for trying to chop every multi-syllable word down into as few as possible. See: Football vs Soccer silliness.
But the Linux kernel was central to the advent of FOSS operating systems. If it were up to the GNU project we'd still not have a working OS. It's unfair to speculate because maybe the BSD family would have taken over but it's worth mentioning that Stallman also passed up on the BSD kernel as well. So, really, the GNU userland had to be dragged into widespread success against its goals.
Also, it's a lot easier to replicate a basic userland than it is to get a working OS going. I think Linux would have done well even without the GNU utils but the opposite is demonstrably not true.
Because the thing people refer to when they say "linux" is not actually an operating system. It is a family of operating systems built by different groups that are built mostly the same way from mostly the same components (which, themselves are built by separate groups).
If I'm not mistaken, you're talking about distributions. When I write 'operating system', I'm referring to a collection of programs that provide a set of utility for a user, such as file manipulation, the ability to compile other programs, etc. Distributions expand on that functionality by configuring everything, providing other programs, and methods to install more. But they mostly build off a common framework, the operating system. Linux is a component of that system that provides the framework. Should it get all the credit for doing so? Personally, I don't think so.