RMS has never really liked the fact that Linux was not under direct GNU control. I am sure the rift is greater after the rejection of GPL 3 by the Linux camp. RMS has a vision for how things should be and tries to align the GNU offerings to that vision. Some agree with it, some kind of agree with it, and some think he is a fruitcake. Understanding his vision puts the push for Hurd into perspective. He cannot achieve it with Linux because Linux is steered by stewards that don't exactly line up with his world view.

I rather like the fact that there is one branch of kernel dev that favors practicality, expediency, and commercial viability in their worldview and another that favors a strident free software philosophy. The world is a better place for having people working on both paths.

I agree, I think there is a place in the world for each philosophical world view. I personally don't like absolutism with the exception of possibly the ones found in pure science.

GNU doesn't really seem to rule their associated projects with an iron fist, so this doesn't stack up. glibc, gcc and gnome all seem to be considerably self-determining.

My summation was not intended to infer that there was a GNU command structure on each project but rather that there is a philosophical agreement among the confederation of projects and an umbrella organization. The stewards of Linux are not in total philosophical agreement with the GNU so the GNU organization probably feels that they need their own project that aligns to their philosophical world view 100%.