What about gcc?
The point isn't that GNU programs aren't useful -- it's just that the claim that GNU is so important it should be included as a mandatory prefix any time anyone mentions "Linux" in a context that is not kernel exclusive is grating and silly.
(I should point out that I too find the whole GNU/Linux tiff silly, but equally silly are the folks who try to write the FSF out of the picture out of spite.)
gcc isn't really "part of the OS" either. Many distributions don't even include it in the default install. Ubuntu is a prominent such distribution.
I'm not trying to write FSF out of the picture. I appreciate their contributions and surely things like gcc, gdb, and emacs are hefty achievements. I am grateful to the FSF and the GNU Project for its legacy and its direct benefit to myself in terms of code provided. However, I don't feel that these contributions entitle GNU to a special prefix on the OS name any more than it entitles KDE, Mozilla, Xorg, or anyone else to a special prefix. I use code from all of those parties and quite appreciate that code, too.
Anyone who might have followed the GNU/ to find out what it is would have found out about the free software movement in the process of learning about Linux. That was my introduction to it, and this naming campaign has given me a negative impression.
I'm glad people are working on replacements for GNU so I don't see someone saying "you mean GNU/Linux" every time anyone mentions Linux in public.
The point isn't that Linux isn't useful -- it's just that the claim that Linux is so important it should be included as a mandatory suffix any time anyone mentions "GNU" in a context that is not kernel exclusive is grating and silly.
On a more serious note, Android is a great example of a non-GNU Linux(or not-as-much-GNU Linux).
Mr. Black & Decker/Bane