Your post was fairly unfocussed, but there are two points I'd like to pick up on.
First, is that the FSF has always been thinking more long-term than most of its opponents. There are constantly complaints made that the FSF's methods and ideals are impractical, where the implicit meaning is 'impractical *in the short term*'. The FSF's positions are entirely practical over terms more like a decade or two - in fact, they're far *more* practical over that length of time than the 'pragmatic' positions of today. Sure it wouldn't be reasonable for *everybody* to follow the FSF position, but we need *somebody* to take that line, in order to progress. Too many people forget that it's worth sacrificing a pawn today if that means taking the opponent's queen in five moves' time.
The second point is about the naming. You say that nobody uses the term 'Microsoft Windows Vista', and in a sense that's true - most reasonably savvy people are likely to say they're running 'Vista'; the others might just say they're running 'Microsoft', if you're lucky. But take a look at anywhere it's written down by an organisation - you'll almost always see 'Microsoft(R) Windows(R) Vista'. The point is that it's an unfair comparison to compare a colloquial name with a 'full' name. Also, the 'GNU/Linux' business has become a lot more meaningful recently, since we now have non-GNU Linuxes (notably Android), which kind of ties in with the first point because the FSF preëmpted that issue by quite some time.