Free versus free
"How come it's all right for the developers who make apps to earn a fortune, yet the anoraks all foam at the mouth if the operating system isn't free?"
First, you are (perhaps intentionally) confusing free (of cost) and free (libre). It is absolutely a good thing to be able to dig into the inner workings of your own system, see how it works, and be able to modify it if you wish. A non-free OS does significantly limits this, if not prohibiting it entirely. On the other hand, I prefer to have FOSS apps (not because I like to look at the source, but because they are more portable from one distro to the next in general...), but closed source apps? I mean, I think I can figure out what a "find the car" app would do internally without having to pour through the source, it's not as big a deal to have a few applications that are closed source.
In the other sense... well... when there's free OSes that are faster, more flexible, more secure, and all around better, people do get all worked up when convicted monopolists use every trick in the book to try to force them to pay for yet another OS. If the maker of this "don't lose the car" app started having companies "bundle" it with every phone (adding to the phone cost), making up FUD campaigns against any free alternative "don't lose the car" apps that came on the market, buying up the competitors and withdrawing them from the market, I would object to him making money this way. But no, he's got a nice niche app and is making money fair and square.
If you can't see the difference I really can't help.


