(Although the egcc split was painful, and at long last there are some viable alternatives - it took decades for them to rise up. So it's a little odd that the FSF/RMS would never have successfully been able to develop a project? Obviously the need for a (new) GPL licensed [kernel] is less when there exists a decent GPL licensed kernel (Linux)).
The majority of FOSS users are actually people that don't want to pay for software and never give anything back to the community.
That's two pretty bold (perhaps even inflammatory) statements.
[Perhaps contigent on a) the number of users of commmercial software that either do not pay, or do pay, but do not want to pay - and b) the definition of "giving back to the community" (Is paying for a Windows license "giving back to the community"?) and to wich extent most users of (any-license) software ever give anything back to the community.]
Also how the majority of everyone that I know, that isn't a technical user, deals with FOSS. They don't care if it is pirated or FOSS, just that they didn't pay for it.
Why do you think there is hardly any money to be done for desktop FOSS software, which usually isn't subjected to trainings or consulting fees?
A few years ago I had expected LLVM to have caught up to GCC by now, but I hadn't anticipated the accelerated pace of GCC improvements. I don't know if the competition from LLVM had anything to do with this, but GCC is showing no signs of slowing down.