When describing Linux command line experience on a resume, what conveys a more professional image: Saying you have experience with "Linux" or "Unix"?
I know that there is a difference, but the fact is that the vast majority of employers are using Linux and care about Linux. A few may run other Unices like BSD, in which case either they're looking specifically for "BSD" on your resume, or they're hoping you can leverage your Linux skills to learn fast. In any case, this is irrelevant: I am expecting specifically for an applicant with Linux experience, applying to positions where Linux is used.
Granted, Linux and BSD for instance are different systems and not exactly the same. But technically saying "Linux" when you're not talking about kernels or drivers is nonsensical, the correct thing would be to say you have GNU (or GNU/Linux) experience. But given how clueless some HR people are, saying GNU instead of Linux runs the risk of getting your resume filtered out due to lacking keywords.
This question is about perceptions more than anything. Do senior technical people often care about "Linux experience"? Is there a widespread, pedantic prejudice against applicants who don't say "Unix experience" instead? Or is it accepted as a necessary evil of the modern job market?
Note: I am not asking for advice on how to describe *nix experience in detail. That is covered adequately by other questions. I'm asking what term is safer to use when an applicant needs to mention experience with mainstream Linux server/desktop distros, and there is not enough space to describe at length the particulars of the experience (due to more significant items taking up space).