Well he's absolutely right. For most Windows users, it is a matter of getting free beer, rather than free speech. That's why piracy is so rampant and millions and millions of dollars go into all this DRM nonsense that means that you're only allowed to use your software for as long as it is officially supported.
Are you saying that a person which uses a zero cost OS for hobby is looking for free speech while someone which has paid for it is looking for free beer?
Your point about freeware software isn't even worth commenting and it is also a boomerang which can very well be applied to open source (you have bad and good programmers on every platform). You have more 'junk' just because you have more software... don't tell me that open source is devoid of junk because you would be a liar.
The DRM argument, which anyway has been put there just for the sake of flaming (what had to do with what I wrote is unknown), is nonsense. If a software requires a hardware feature, not supporting this feature doesn't mean that the software will run it nonetheless, it will just not work at all. By not supporting DRM media the only service that you are doing to your userbase is stopping people from playing that kind of media. Not supporting existent hardware for ideological reasons in my opinion is nonsense as long as you are not forced to use a feature against your will. Endorsement and support are two different concepts. In my opinion a good OS should support every possible piece of hardware: then let people decide if they want to use DRM media or not, or if they should start a campaign against it (for example many companies have started to sell music without DRM).
Rubbish. Name one freeware Outlook replacement?
I have successfully used Eudora since the early nineties, long before Ximian Evolution and Thunderbird were even born.