If the point is supposed to be "why insist on calling it GNU/Linux when xx% of it isn't even produced by GNU?", it's an ill-made point. Most of the userland (and certainly what we could call the "core" userland, especially in terms of development tools) is GNU software. The system would be pretty unusable libc, gcc, ld, make, etc.
I don't think bsd libc supports linux specifics such as fanotify and such, the libc is usually tied to a kernel. (I haven't looked at bsd libc so I may be wrong)
My point isn't that there aren't competent replacements. Obviously the BSDs in general have different userlands, as does Solaris, and so forth. But those things -are- the userland on a Linux system.
I tried hard to not make it about that but about the fragmentation of the sources of software in a modern distribution. But to your point, now with llvm we're increasingly at a point where libc, gcc, ld, make and many other gnu staples actually do have very competent replacements. As I pointed out in the post of any of the big gnu projects only gdb really has no replacement.
GNU's argument for why it deserves specific recognition over other equally and more significant contributions is uncompelling. Repeating it isn't going to make it more so.
