First gripe: Linux refers to the kernel only. Its not wrong to say, “I run Linux”, but that is very broad. For example, Android runs Linux too, but it is widely accepted that Android has deviated greatly from the Linux kernel base; something Google is slowly, some-what trying to resolve.
Second gripe: GNU/Linux was a phrase R. Stallman wanted to use after his GNU OS idea continued to see / experience delays while the GNU tools were individually adopting popularity with other OSs. In my opinion, it was / is his way of trying to make his political choices as a staunch FSF (Free (libre) Software Foundation) advocate matter. The bottom line is that when you say “GNU/Linux” you might be qualifying that the system runs GNU tools on top of a Linux kernel, but where does it end? Today, you could just as easily try to say that “GNOME/Wayland/Systemd/GNU/Linux” is not the same as “GNOME/XOrg/sysvinit/GNU/Linux” or “KDE/Wayland/upstart/GNU/Linux”, etc. It is a little more nuanced than that as the GNU tools do tend to define slightly more compatibility due to the nature of encompassing some of the lowest level user tools, but the example is valid and it highlights how the nature of open source software is sort-of troublesome to apply differentiating labels above the kernel
Third, Torvalds has gone on record many times stating that he doesn’t really see the appeal of the “GNU/Linux” scheme, but he does understand why some people think it is important.
Last, my personal opinion is I say, “I run Fedora”, and if someone asks what that is, “its a Linux based general Operating System alternative to Windows”
First gripe: Linux refers to the kernel only. Its not wrong to say, “I run Linux”, but that is very broad. For example, Android runs Linux too, but it is widely accepted that Android has deviated greatly from the Linux kernel base; something Google is slowly, some-what trying to resolve.
Second gripe: GNU/Linux was a phrase R. Stallman wanted to use after his GNU OS idea continued to see / experience delays while the GNU tools were individually adopting popularity with other OSs. In my opinion, it was / is his way of trying to make his political choices as a staunch FSF (Free (libre) Software Foundation) advocate matter. The bottom line is that when you say “GNU/Linux” you might be qualifying that the system runs GNU tools on top of a Linux kernel, but where does it end? Today, you could just as easily try to say that “GNOME/Wayland/Systemd/GNU/Linux” is not the same as “GNOME/XOrg/sysvinit/GNU/Linux” or “KDE/Wayland/upstart/GNU/Linux”, etc. It is a little more nuanced than that as the GNU tools do tend to define slightly more compatibility due to the nature of encompassing some of the lowest level user tools, but the example is valid and it highlights how the nature of open source software is sort-of troublesome to apply differentiating labels above the kernel
Third, Torvalds has gone on record many times stating that he doesn’t really see the appeal of the “GNU/Linux” scheme, but he does understand why some people think it is important.
Last, my personal opinion is I say, “I run Fedora”, and if someone asks what that is, “its a Linux based general Operating System alternative to Windows”
That makes sense