How far do you go with this? A Linux distro is called so because it is base don the Linux kernel. Yes, it includes the GNU toolset, but it also includes QT or GTK, KDE or GNOME, maybe Apache, postfix or sendmail.
Does that mean I should say I'm using GNU/QT/KDE/Apache/Postfix/GTK/Google/Mozilla/Linux?
When operating system or distro names become longer than German nouns, you know something is not quite right.
Well, if it is descriptive in terms of functionality ... or standards. Then the length or form is irrelevant. What is though, is if it is correct. And if it is correct then the symbol used to reflect it will tend to become more terse.
Personally i like the usage of 'GNU Linux' in that it reflects the spirit of Linux. It was after all largely, the work done by the FSF that got the ball rolling in terms of concept and also tool usage.
A Linux wouldn't be the same without emacs, but it would still be Linux with out kde or gnome.
(Go on people, bang on about that one if you must.)
I guess one should include other editors like 'vi' etc too.
Nelz has a point, so why don't we just call them FLOSS distros? That covers the vast majority of software contained in them and would allow for other kernels.
(You mean like, something a person can get their teeth into (grin)).
I suppose a person could really. Would a BSD be a FLOSS distro. I think it may well be so. Any distro that contained free open source software would have to be. In that case though, GNU Linux along with BSD would be subsets.
GNU Linux could also be thought of as a subset of UNIX Like systems as well.