I think that GNU/Linux is a valuable distinction due to the significance of libc. Alpine keeps uncovering how applications rely on GNU-isms and there seems to be no end to those issues. libc, however anemic, makes a huge difference it seems. Maybe it should be "glibc/Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux"?
However from the Linux desktop end user's point of view, whether a system is glibc-based, or musl-based is less directly significant than whether it is Gnome or KDE-based; alternatively, whether it's systemd or OpenRC or runit-based. So if GNU wants some clout for glibc, then in fairness the name starts to sound more like "GNU/systemd/KDE/Linux" at which point it sounds ridiculous. And for all those components the famous "I'd like to interject for a moment" makes equal sense as for GNU.
I frequently work with busybox-based systems and they're not nearly as different from GNU/Linux as KDE is different from Gnome.
However from the Linux desktop end user's point of view, whether a system is glibc-based, or musl-based is less directly significant than whether it is Gnome or KDE-based; alternatively, whether it's systemd or OpenRC or runit-based. So if GNU wants some clout for glibc, then in fairness the name starts to sound more like "GNU/systemd/KDE/Linux" at which point it sounds ridiculous. And for all those components the famous "I'd like to interject for a moment" makes equal sense as for GNU.
I frequently work with busybox-based systems and they're not nearly as different from GNU/Linux as KDE is different from Gnome.