Also, he did change the system from the inside. This is why people deal with his quirks.
Sure he can get away with it, but that doesn't mean that he's not being a dick at times.
In terms of whose way is working: Stallman has created something that works for him but I wouldn't swap my life for his in a million years (and I'm sure he reciprocates that).
But I don't think he's such a success that his life can be held up as some unimprovable template.
Yeah, no, not really. Linus did, by precisely following that advice : compromise and be practical. Yes, he couldn't have done it without rms's previous work, but without Linux, Free Software would have been all but forgotten by now.
I'd also argue that one of the reasons why Linux is still at around 1% of the desktop market is similar : blindly following principles at the expense of convenience and practicality.
Both RMS and Linus changed the world; I'd argue they've both changed it considerably for the better.
Why does it have to be just one or the other?
Not that famous, and if his goal is advocacy, he's doing a pretty miserable job. We get it, he's bitter because Linus is something of a computer programmer rock star and he isn't. I sympathise with much of his argument, but the way he argues contradicts his message.