I see your point, and I understand the operating system definition can depend on the context—whether you see it as just the kernel or the complete system.
I'm not sure if even the
@fsf would fully endorse my view, but I find their logic compelling. Here is the central question: unless you are running a pure kernel like #Linux by itself (a project focused on a #kernel, hosted at kernel.org), then calling the entire system "Linux" isn't a meaningful name for a complete, usable #OS. I recognize what people usually refer to as "Linux" is, in fact, a system designed to be #GNU.
To illustrate: if we apply the logic of naming the whole system after its kernel, then why do we call it "Android" and not just "Linux"? After all, #Android uses Linux too, yet we correctly recognize it as a distinct system.
So why is GNU so often forgotten and replaced by "Linux" when talking about personal or server computers? (Only in this context?) I believe this isn't accidental—it often overlooks the deeper vision of a project designed from the start to ensure software freedom for its users.
When we are running only the kernel (whatever the purpose may be), then by all means, let's call the OS "Linux." But when it's part of a larger, distinct system—like the GNU OS—then it should be recognized as such.
I'd like to add a final thought: I know it can sometimes be annoying to insist on this when it seems that everyone understands what "Linux" means, even if we disagree with the term. But this is part of the advocacy—sometimes it involves emphasizing a technicality that may even be controversial, in order to reinforce public awareness of GNU and the philosophy of free software.
A brief debate like this one, right here, may be enough for someone to realize what GNU is, which is already a desired outcome. Who knows, it might even spark a flame of curiosity, leading them to research this fascinating topic further.