Well, Formula One needs people watching it to survive. And, in order to get most people watching Formula One, its going to need the prospect of something happening at a majority of races. That is what Pirelli deliver.
Mephistopheles, Sebastian Vettel had a superior strategy in Abu Dhabi in 2010, but he didn't 'get lucky with tyres'. He was able to set times to such a level that he was able to do what Alonso needed to - i.e. beat Rosberg. The Championship was that day decided by who was fast enough to beat Nico Rosberg home. Ferrari forgot that, and thus lost.
As FB says, the 70s and 80s aren't coming back - and having no stops would put a higher premium on tyre management because the FIA would be sure to instruct Pirelli to make them marginal. And don't forget, in the last season we had one set of tyres per race, a consequence of that decision was that 6 cars took the start of the United States Grand Prix.
I don't think going back to the fuel stop situation would be remotely fun - we've seen the other side now! It also rewarded great strategy rather than great speed and led to the farcical situation where the grid was decided by how light the car was. Remember the Q3 glory runs of Alonso in 2009 when he pitted by lap 10?
As for tyres, every driver has the option to take his strategic decisions. No-one is forcing the cars out in Q2 or Q3, no-one is forcing the driver to use any options or to use any primes. The only proviso is the one about starting the race on the set of tyres from your fastest Q3 time. Some teams decide to take 10th rather than burn a set of tyres. That's their choice. If Buemi('s side of the garage) had decided to start 17th with shiny tyres at his disposal - as Force India did at Barcelona in 2010 - then maybe he would have beaten his team-mate. But, emphatically, it was his choice.
Something else that wasn't 'fair' was the drivers who took massive gains under the old system by essentially being crap and slow, but one-stopping and gaining a massive advantage when the Safety Car came out. I'm not talking issues like Vettel jumping from 3rd to 2nd in Australia; I'm talking Wurz (15th → 3rd, Canada 2007) and Piquet (14th → 1st, Germany 2008) jumping the field. And remember the end of that story was Renault realising how much of an advantage random Safety Cars were...!
I'm a bit divided here. I think pit stops are much more exciting now without refuelling, changing all 4 tyres in 3 seconds (3 minutes if you're McLaren) is amazing. However, it means the cars are much slower for most of the race and it is physically less demanding for the drivers.
Similarly for the tyres, I would say I'm definitely in favour of tyre stops but I'm not sure I'm in favour of having to tip-toe around preserving them, like the Pirelli tyres seem to be causing to some extent. There has been a few great races because of tyre degradation though...
Remember two small, but very important facts from the fuel stop era.
1. cars were slower after the stop as they were heavier
2. instead of saving tyres, they saved fuel to eke out an extra lap
ie. there was no undercut in the fuel stop era - quite the opposite. You put off stopping as long as your fuel load would allow it and tried to gain a position by going a lap longer. Once you had stopped, you were 2s a lap slower (fresh rubber made more than outweighed by the extra weight).
All the overtaking happened while someone was in the pits.
Now, you are much faster after a stop by perhaps 2s. When you come out of the pits you can use your fresher tyres to overtake on the track .