This is it exactly. While I can't speak for all Linux users, I don't think most are die hard anything. The very existence of Linux has more to do with the stagnation Unix was facing for a variety of reasons. When I first used Linux, KDE was superior, but everyone still ran gtk applications. When Gnome took a step forward, a lot of people moved over to it. At the end of the day, Linux users will move to the set of tools, which provides the best balance between performance, functionality and aesthetic. That balance will vary by user. Instead of Gnome/KDE asking, "why won't the users accept change?", they should be asking "why didn't most users feel the direction we went represented a step forward?".

Linus doesn't need someone to pay his light bills.

Ok, I guess I'll be the one to rant about the doctrine here (where is my soap box). I think you are implying that for an application to be successful it must also be marketable. In my understanding of the whole gnu philosophy that is not the case. It neither matters that the commercial market accepts it or rejects it. The point of the code is to be useful to someone. In this instance I can't be sure if the GPL has been violated, and I believe in these gray areas a company will usually win in a legal case. The GPL is not a much without a good legal team behind it, and the FSF can't blow their resources on every case. Violations will happen. Still think of all the other people using and improving the code that aren't in violation. Some may not have the resources to purchase commercial software, but none the less have the need. To me open sourced software means that a hospital in Africa can keep patient records in a database, because there are applications they can run and improve on themselves. So if some of my code is used in such a manner, I feel it was well worth it. And since I have yet to write a single piece of perfect code, I'm glad someone else can doctor it. Because it is GPL they can't turn around and sell it without releasing that code. I have no problem with them selling it. Nor do they need to provide binaries to anyone. As long as other parts of their application operate independently they can leave that code out. But the code will still have the freedom to evolve, because it is still out there. That is why a coder would give away their code freely (as in free not beer).