Not mocking. Definitely being a little sarcastic. But why do we have to get into a holy war over Stallman. You know as well as I do that what I said is true but unfortunately Stallman's cult following absolutely must punish anyone who points out the obvious. So I said what I needed to. I was actually being sincere, not trying to outright mock him for the sake of mocking him.
Like most people, I find Stallman strange. His methods are quirky, and his language grating. He alienates his allies more often than his enemies. He picks fights at the wrong times. He stands behind principle in circumstances where it clearly hurts his cause.
But... he's right. Almost always, he's right. He's made a 40 year career now of being right: often decades before the rest of us figure it out. That's enough for me to cut him as much slack as he wants.
Nattering detractors like you have been around for almost as long as he has. I used to be one 15 years ago (when, damn it, I was sure he was going to tank the coming open source revolution; except he didn't, and he was right). He just draws that kind of attention.
I don't know what the grand-parent was talking about, but if you want to read something that he foresaw before everybody (AFAIK) check the Right to Read essay (http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html)
That DRM would eventually lead to unusable computer systems. That a completely free software OS was possible. That software patents were bad things. That chasing profit in the LISP machine market would destroy the MIT hacker community. That "look and feel" lawsuits would hurt free software. That a copyleft license would not hurt software adoption by commercial vendors.
You want me to go on? He was on all this stuff (some of it critically important, some of it less so) before, in many cases years before the rest of us caught up.
Let me turn it around then: find something he was verifiably wrong about. There aren't that many cases, and what there are are mostly tactical things (e.g. picking the fight about GNU/Linux was, I believe, counterproductive), not factual ones.
About the increasing restrictions on the tools needed to program generated by the attempt to restrict what you can do with an electronic device. He foresaw the kind of restrictions that appeared both in the iPhone and the german legislation.
Having control over the software that runs on the devices you use to interact with the society of which you are a part is extremely important and the more that computation and networks are used as mechanisms of the state and statelike entities, the more important it gets.
He is right to fight for Free software because it empowers the weak, the poor, the oppressed, and also hobbyists, even though there is certainly non-Free software that does so as well (routers for example may carry speech freely but may not be Free themselves). He takes this philosophy to extremes to make his point.
Hand waiving, hand waiving.
Last I heard oppressed were quite empovered by twitter, facebook and mobile phones—those parasitic and evil tools, according to rms. I am talking about Arab Spring.
That's the best example that he is talking bullshit. I see no point of admiring man just be cause he is too stubborn not to ignore reality. Would I admire young earth creationist sticking to his believs despite all the science? No way.
rms has zero understanding of all things social, about what makes "normal" people tick. His fantasies have little to do with the reality and the future.
In the world where everyone is a programmer his vision might hold some water, but
the days when all computer users were programmers and sysadmins are long gone and will never return.
And I'm sure rms would do more good if he fought for food and water for poor in Africa.
The point is, he did not resolved to do it, just like his resolve is not fighting dictators. If not helping folks oppressed by tyranny government, then we all are talking bulshit, although it's less true with regard to Stallman, since free software helped Twitter and Facebook happen.
