I dissagree that there is a fundamental understanding. First, there are many FSF leaders who seem to have a semi-communisitic or more accurately a utopian philosophy which precludes the need for profiting or much profit.
Who are these "many FSF leaders"? Where have they said this?
Second, those who are part of the FSF and OSS movements generally believe that profiting is possible through means other than selling software.
You make it sound like the availability of other means of profit mutually excludes selling the software. It does not.
However, this has yet to be proven (arguably)
I would argue that there are already many companies out there embracing the demand for business built around free software, but I'd just get flamed and pointed out that none of them are as successful as Microsoft.
and therefore even those who think they believe in profiting practically don't because they are supporting an (again, arguably) not-for-profit movement.
Well, it seems that you're as confused as the guy in the article. There is nothing at all not-for-profit about free software or OSS development. Would you please provide me with some references that you used to reach the conclusion that you currently hold? I really hope you re-evaluate your opinions.