Nowadays, the programs most users interact with on a day-to-day basis aren't GNU. For example, my graphical environment comes from X.org and KDE. And I spend a

Nowadays, the programs most users interact with on a day-to-day basis aren't GNU. For example, my graphical environment comes from X.org and KDE. And I spend a lot of time in my web browser, which doesn't come from GNU, either: that's either Chromium (code by Google) or Pale Moon (fork of code by Mozilla). Keep in mind that modern web browsers are full-fledged virtual machines that run applications developed by thousands of organizations all across the globe. On the command line, my shell is zsh. The servers I run come from organizations like the Apache Software Foundation (httpd) and OpenBSD (openssh). Most of the hobbyist dev work I do is in Python, which certainly isn't GNU. While many of the command-line utilities I use do come from GNU, you could probably swap most of them out for BusyBox and it'd take a while for me to notice. That leaves, what, gcc? Well, even that isn't safe what with clang gaining traction and all... At a high level, GNU is irrelevant. And thanks to systemd, the init system is now closely coupled to so many functions of the system that systemd-based distributions and non-systemd distributions are wildly different. A kFreeBSD distribution using GNU "userland" and a traditional init system feels wildly different from a Linux distribution using GNU "userland" and systemd. Really, systemd vs. sysvinit makes far more difference than glibc vs. some other libc. We're reaching a point where the init system is what makes different OSes feel different at a low level, not the CLI utilities and the libc. So if GNU is irrelevant from both a user-interactive level and a core system level, then how is it relevant?