lol Who?

Well we wouldn't want to commit sacrilege

It's a shame my instance has disabled downvoting.

Linux is not exclusively for anti-capitalist FOSS-lovers like myself. As you mentioned, there are multiple different corporate distros. Additionally, "The Cloud" runs on Linux: not even Microsoft uses Windows to host their services. And let's not forget Android and Tizen!

All of that is, however, beside the point. Do you reject Wikipedia because it too is created by volunteers? Software, like knowledge, exists beyond the concept of scarcity.

If us FLOSS-lovers had our way, no one would ever have to pay for software, as it would be maintained by the community. And of course, most such projects and developers accept donations.

I hope this does not fall on deaf ears, though I understand that the concept of working to improve the lives of others (and one's own life) without some form of direct payment is... foreign, to many people living under capitalism.

I've never seen a software freedom or open-source enthusiast make anything remotely like this argument. When we have criticisms of predominantly open-source-based companies, it's usually because they're adding some kind of proprietary scamware into their systems, not because they're charging money for their services.

Plenty of people and companies have found ways to generate income - yes, even beyond donations - while still respecting other's rights. You're just repeating a lie that's been debunked and dead for years.

I am a software engineer who believes software engineers should be paid for their work. I use Linux. Do I mean nothing to you??

I think most Linux users don’t have a problem with things like RHEL. I personally think it’s great. I don’t personally use it, but I have absolutely no problem with it.

The actual problem Linux users care about is when people use and modify the Linux kernel (or any other GPL project), distribute the binaries, but don’t distribute the source code. (I’m looking at you, Sony.)