So, we're supposed to tell the vegetarians, "No, you don't
get fake meat" and the Linux users, "No, you don't
get to do office things"?
The point is they still want (enough) to do those things if they can do them without compromising other concerns. And they want that even if those things aren't done as well (which is certainly usually the case for fake meat). If they didn't want to do those things enough to compromise, they wouldn't do them (and this certainly represents some portion of both populations). If they wanted to do them and cared more about the fact that the alternative is poor than about their other concerns, they would be eating meat or using Windows. Making the alternative suck less decreases the push away from vegetarianism or Linux, as spreading ethical concerns and improving package management and such increases the push toward them.
I don't think "Linux should play to its strengths" is a crazy position, necessarily, but I also think characterizing the other side as not having a point is disingenuous - in both the vegetarianism and FLO cases.