GNU purism

The belief that "every piece of software not released under the GNU GPL or a compatible licence is evil and should not be supported." Especially fervent when discussing pieces of software that might be essential to the future of Linux or the Free Software Community, such as the recent Great Desktop Schism.

RMS is a GNU purist, Linus Torvalds is not.

RMS (and other saints in the Church of Emacs) does not believe that software released under a "license compatible to the GPL" is evil. He believes that proprietary software is "evil" (your word, not his) because it subjugates people and forbids understanding or sharing; software should be free(speech) (the GPL is just one example of a good free software license). He is a man of principle, an idealist, consistent, and a non-conformist. Some people don't like that, but he has good reasons for virtually all he says and does. If it weren't for the Great Desktop Schism, you bet your booty that the QPL wouldn't have been loosened, and we wouldn't have the freedoms we have today. GNU purism is absolutely necessary.

GNU purism, ethnic cleansing, bigotry, reich.

As said above, RMS is a non-conformist, yet his followers feel that purism (aka conformity) is a good thing.

Diversity is the answer. Cross-breed. Find the splice between species. Success by multiple approaches.

Learn from Microsoft's and Windows' strengths. Avoid their pitfalls.
Learn from Borland's and Cygnus' strengths. Avoid their pitfalls.
Learn from Lotus' and Oracle's strengths. Avoid their pitfalls.
Learn from RedHat's and GNU's strengths. Avoid their pitfalls.

Such zealotry smacks me of a madman spitting as he yells, "DEATH TO ALL FANATICS!"