I'm community wikiing this, since although I don't want it to be a discussion thread, I don't think that there is really a right answer to this.  

From what I've seen, model theorists and logicians are mostly opposed to GCH, while on the other end of the spectrum, some functional analysis depends on GCH, so it is much better tolerated among functional analysts.  In fact,   I considered myself very much +GCH for a while, but Joel and Francois noted some interesting stuff about forcing axioms, (the more powerful ones directly contradict CH).  

What is the general opinion on GCH in the mathematical community (replace GCH with CH where necessary)? Does it happen to be that CH/GCH doesn't often come up in algebra?  

Please don't post just post "I agree with +-CH".  I'd like your assessment of the mathematical community's opinion.  Maybe your experiences with mathematicians you know, etc. Even your own experiences or opinion can work.  I am just not interested in having 30 or 40 one line answers. Essentially, I'm not looking for a poll.  

Edit: GCH=Generalized Continuum Hypothesis
CH= Continuum Hypothesis

CH says that $\aleph_1=\mathfrak{c}$.  That is, the successor cardinal of $\aleph_0$ is the continuum.  The generalized form (GCH) says that for any infinite cardinal $\kappa$, we have $\kappa^+=2^\kappa$, that is, there are no cardinals strictly between $\kappa$ and $2^\kappa$.

Edit 2 (Harry): Changed the wording about FA.  If it still isn't true, and you can improve it, feel free to edit the post yourself and change it.

There is definitely a not-CH tendency among set theorists with a strong Platonist bent, and my impression is that this is the most common view. Many of these set theorists believe that the large cardinal hierarchy and the accompanying uniformization consequences are pointing us towards the final, true set theory, and that the various forcing axioms, such as PFA, MM etc. are a part of it. 

Another large group of set theorists working in the area of inner model theory have GCH in all the most important models that they study, and regard GCH as one of the attractive regularity features of those inner models. 

There is a far smaller group of set theorists (among whom I count myself) with a multiverse perspective, who take the view that set theory is really about studying all the possible universes that we might live in, and studying their inter-relations. For this group, the CH question is largely settled by the fact that we understand in a very deep way how to move fom the CH universes to the not-CH universes and vice versa, by the method of forcing. They are each dense in a sense in the collection of all set-theoretic universes. 
