I've been doing some reading on www.gnu.org, and it looks like there has been lots of additions to the page since last time I looked (especially the FAQ, located here). Almost all of the information included in the FAQ is related to how the GNU project is being misrepresented by society's collective choice to call the system we all use "Linux" rather than "GNU/Linux". I have nothing but respect for the project/movement that is GNU, and I understand the argument they have in the debate between the 'Free Software' movement and the 'Open Source' movement (see this link). I guess I would even be more in favor of the free software movement if it was a viable option to getting my video card, wireless card, and all other goodies in my system to work. There are some reasons why I can't completely buy-in to the re-renaming of the project that is now called Linux.

While I like the feeling of solving the types of problems that will always come up while using this OS, I also like my computer to work to it's fullest capability. That means that if the company that makes my expensive 3D video card releases closed-source (and obviously non-free in GNU terms) drivers that do the job better than any alternative, then I will most likely use that driver. Not only do I like the idea of my computer being able to do cool things, I want to actually do those cool things. If the only tool available is closed source, then at this point (in the whole GNU/Linux) I'll pick what works best. If at some point a replacement is made for my closed-source and non-free drivers, then I'll be more than glad to make the switch (if the performance is at least somewhat similar).

If the GNU project's founders have such a problem with the current popular name for their most popular working system not including the name GNU in it, then that's just a minor part. If you read the GNU site you'll see they are also not happy with the philosophy that Linus Torvalds supposedly has(according to their website), and for that matter the philosophy of people who would choose to use their computer to its fullest extent... even if that means using non-free or closed-source software. My comment to this is that if the GNU project's founders have such a major problem with what this community as a whole seems to have become (which is focusing more on the open-source and arguably hobby aspect rather than the free-software philosophy), then why not create viable replacements to the Linux kernel and any non-free parts of the software package with their own GNU-created software? I've read a little about the GNU kernel called Hurd, and if that kernel ever gets out of development AND starts being used in distributions then that in itself will be a miracle considering how long it's been in development (and I'd be glad to give a distribution that uses that kernel a try). The kernel is however just one part of the project that isn't created by the GNU project, which means that even in the extremely unlikely event that Linux (and more importantly the Linux name) is marginalized by the entrance of Hurd to any extent, there will still be other opportunities for people to call the project by some other name that may not be suitable according to the GNU project founders. Which bring me to my next point...

Linux sounds much better than GNU. The reason for one name taking off much faster than the other could have alot more to do with that than the choosing of appropriate philosophies in the Free versus Open software debate... and I don't think the name Hurd is too much of an improvement in that department.