I respect FSF and RMS very much, and in fact I think if it weren't for them, Unix would've died, and Linux wouldn't really take off, maybe even BSD wouldn't have existed, and Mac wouldn't exist in the form we know it today (that is, as a Unix based OS).
Having said that, RMS's ideology is not inherently good per se; it's somewhat radical, but without the existence of radicalism, we would've ended up in a world of proprietry only software. In other words, the Open Source movement's "utopia" can't exist without RMS-like radicals who push strongly towards a world of only free software.
As a result, we get an equilibrium where all the tools for development and infrastructure are free/open-source, while end-user products are not always free.
Having said that, RMS's ideology is not inherently good per se; it's somewhat radical, but without the existence of radicalism, we would've ended up in a world of proprietry only software. In other words, the Open Source movement's "utopia" can't exist without RMS-like radicals who push strongly towards a world of only free software.
As a result, we get an equilibrium where all the tools for development and infrastructure are free/open-source, while end-user products are not always free.