There's not a huge difference between the usefulness and success of projects
that describe themselves as "free software" and projects that describe
themselves as "open source". "Open source" is more popular, so that's why
there are more success stories where the developers use the term "open
source". GNU describes itself exclusively as "free software", and LibreOffice
also uses the "free software" label.
It's unfair to claim that free software activists "attack" non-free software
developers. Of course free software activists oppose development of non-free
software, but "attack" doesn't describe criticism and rejection. Use of the
word "attack" would be appropriate if, for example, there were free software
activists blowing up Microsoft computers. That isn't happening.
"Evangelist" is similarly an unfair way to describe free software activism.
This seeks to equate the free software movement with religion. If anyone is
religious, it's the open source advocates; the whole idea of "open source"
has been thoroughly disproven.[1] The free software movement isn't a
religion; it's a political and social movement. If you're going to call the
free software movement "evangelist", you should also use the same term to
describe the feminist movement, the anarchist movements, the American civil
rights movement of the 1960s, and any other movement you can think of. This
term is simply a way for you to invite people to dismiss what the free
software movement says without even considering it.
As for the Trisquel project, well, you need to separate the Trisquel
community from the Trisquel development team. You can't make a statement
about the developers of Trisquel based on what a few community members say
and do. We're not all developers of Trisquel. Most of us aren't. At that,
this is a free software community. You should expect most members here to be
opposed to non-free software.
[1] http://mako.cc/copyrighteous/when-free-software-isnt-better-talk
