Okay, so holding to uncompromising moral principles isn't particularly compatible with real-world success. This is neither new nor limited to Free Software; you

Okay, so holding to uncompromising moral principles isn't particularly compatible with real-world success. This is neither new nor limited to Free Software; you either compromise in order to get along, or you retreat with like-minded folks and live your own way (cf. Amish communities, hippie communes, &c.) Not everyone agrees with Stallman's ethical standards, and it's not even hard to argue that strategic compromises could better achieve the long-term goals of the FSF (in fact, they've been known to make exactly those sorts of compromises). But it really bothers me when people criticize Stallman for being out of touch, or imply that it's "hatred of Microsoft" or whatever motivating him, while sometimes seeming to promote compromise as a virtue in and of itself. Are these people willfully ignoring the explicit philosophical/ethical framework behind the FSF? Are they opposed to the ethical stance but unwilling to say so directly? Is it inconceivable to them that someone could actually dedicate their lives to a moral cause? I suppose the obvious cynical answer is "they're trolling GNU/Fanboys in order to rack up more website hits", but I try not to assume acting in bad faith as my first explanation.