Yeah, yeah, we know the story. They can call their distro GNU/Linux if they want, but I see no reason to call 'Arch Linux' 'Arch GNU/Linux'. What about OSs like openSUSE, that don't even have Linux in their name? Should it be GNU openSUSE? We can repeat the whole argument what makes a complete OS here, and who should be credited in it's title if you want.
Btw, the Hurd will never be ready. On the other hand Duke Forever shipped, why shouldn't the Hurd.
That post tells me you don't understand the story at all. The FSF and RMS have never suggested calling OpenSUSE "GNU OpenSUSE", and "GNU/Linux" is not supposed to imply a distro.
The story is: the GNU project was and is a project to create a complete free OS, based on UNIX, which is called GNU ("GNU's Not Unix"). The project was started in 1984, I think, backed by FSF. At around 1991, GNU was almost complete, but it was missing the kernel.
At this time, Linus Torvalds developed a kernel, Linux, which for various reasons was finished before the GNU kernel. Linus released Linux as free software, and people wanting a complete OS based on Linux went looking for the other parts. Wouldn't you know it, all that stuff was done! So, they took the incomplete GNU system and bundled it with Linux. They called this system "Linux", after the kernel, since they really didn't know any better.
Unfortunately, this undermines the years of work done by the Free Software Foundation and instead attributes it to Linus Torvalds, who only made the kernel. This is unfair, but it also makes it much more difficult for the FSF to get people to take them and their values seriously, which is a problem, because the FSF and their values are the only reasons GNU/Linux exists.
That's the problem the FSF and GNU project have with calling the system "Linux", and that's also why I call the system "GNU/Linux" (usually said as "GNU plus Linux" when I say it).