The world's premier and, in fact, only truly free software operating system.Ignoring that it doesn't actually hold up to scrutiny (there have been many "truly free software operating systems"), this brought to mind a spectacular feature of freedom: it abhors singularity. Indeed, monopoly positions are exceedingly rare in free systems.
Usually the only way to ensure a monopoly exists in a free society is to mandate it via government (or its equivalent) regulation. Very rarely do monopolies form on their own in free societies, and usually when they do form it is due to an abuse of the system and unless systemic corruption is maintained to support that situation (in which case, is it a free society?) then society tends to attack the monopoly resulting in either a curbing of its power or even a forced breakup. This creates a new period of opportunity and competition and the singularity is removed.
Sometimes a group comes up with an idea first, or figures out how to apply an existing idea in practical ways first, and due to this first-mover position initially monopolizes a given niche. In a free system this innovation is often very quickly replicated, or at the very least reacted to, by others and such monopoly is short lived. We can find endless examples in biological evolution as well as human technology for this exact process. This is also why the patent system came into place: this replication of good ideas in free societies can be so efficient that it makes it hard to profit from good ideas without some mechanism of protection.
(Aside: this implies that patent systems are only valuable when they reflect the real ratio of initial effort investment to reward rate.)
This is why most markets (economic, political, social, ..) have multiple competing parties. This competition drives everyone forward and reduces the risk associated with a single point of failure, which is socially beneficial. As a result, free societies tend to outpace societies with less freedom: by artificially enforcing singularities improvement incentives are reduced and risk associated with failure is driven up.
So whenever I hear someone say that their plan involves being "the only" thing in a free society, I assume they don't understand much about free societies. When this is coupled with adjectives such as "true" it starts to smell of fundamentalism.
Free software intrinsically exists in a free society: it is mandated in the licenses. The only ways around this are to artificially create singularities by monopolizing the talent pool (hiring all the developers) or keeping all decision making power in one central place that is guarded by veils of inscrutability and a lack of accountability. People who think this way are not the sort of people I would like to see directing free software; it is a recipe to curb the intrinsic freedom brought by free software.
Instead, we must embrace the sustainable and powerful forces of free systems, which includes diversity and competition and almost never being the "only" of anything that is usefully important.