Sure, the FSF is as idealistic as it has been influential. Can't fault FSF for unrelenting commitment to stated purposes. While the totally free OS was a goal that never quite materialized, a large proportion of modern open-source systems is composed of free (in the FSF sense) software. What FSF advocates has indeed mattered.

I think the question is this: is having totally free cell phones, etc., the essential criterion of success? Or is something less than embodying FSF-style ideology acceptable? To be sure, there's no definitive answer to such a question. But ideological purity is a luxury in the real world that even FSF acknowledges, compromises sometimes have to be made, pragmatic considerations have to be taken into account.

Nothing wrong with keeping lofty goals, but as practical necessity frequently dictates, graciously accepting less than total victory more often than not best serves our interests.

(Edited re: grammar.)

> a large proportion of modern open-source systems is composed of free (in the FSF sense) software.

The critical parts aren't though, and that's where it matters the most, IMHO intentionally so.

An HP printer being 99% based on free components won't be a tangible improvement if the last 1% vehemently prevents it's free use. Open source being the core of the OS doesn't help if nothing can replace iOS on an iPhone.

We're in a world where free software has massively grown, while the day to day impacts are IMHO comparatively small. It feels like we're more free than ever, inside our new confinement cells.