I've always argued that RMS is an excellent counter-balancing influence. While the line for acceptable behavior keeps being pushed by corporate and state interests away from privacy, away from user and developer freedom, away from the notion that there are conversations that should be free of marketing, he holds the other end down, making the center fall somewhat closer to recognition of human dignity in digital matters.<p>That said, we need new voices and more voices, on that end of the spectrum. RMS has never been the ideal spokesperson for a movement, though his passion is beyond question, and his technical achievements impressive. The world of computing RMS represents is old-fashioned to the current generation. I fall in between the old generation and this new generation that has never known a time without the Internet dominating everything, and I can see where the language of RMS can seem to miss the point to a lot of younger folks. While he has always been prescient on these fronts, and I think he understands the world we live in better than most, I don't think he can be the voice of the current generation of hackers, the way he was the voice of prior generations.<p>The GNU project as a whole has the feel of a relic, and I worry every time I go to gnu.org and see the state of it. A few years ago, there were GNU projects for all sorts of modern things; there was Savannah to address the problems inherent in SourceForge (again, prescient...SF.net turned evil just as RMS assumed they would). But, GNU has nothing for github (there are Open Source github alternatives, but GNU is nowhere in the story).<p>Anyway, I don't know what needs to happen, but I know a few things: GNU is so much less relevant than when I started using Linux 20+ years ago. RMS speaks to an older generation of hackers; even though he <i>should</i> be heeded by the young, I doubt he is. And, I can't think of any other voices for software freedom that are as consistent or as effective as RMS and GNU was 20 years ago.
The polarization with regard to how Stallman should be interpreted is, I believe, one of the preliminary illustrations of the rift between the entrepreneurial hacker and MIT-style hacker subcultures, modulo OSI diehards such as Eric S. Raymond.
The article trivializes Stallman by labeling him an extremist. The author seems to say, hey, Stallman may have a point but is still a bit too weird to emulate. Hey, if RMS is right, then most of us are severely ethically compromised when it comes to our computing decisions. If he's wrong in part (maybe it's OK to enrich and empower Google / the Government through our choice of systems?) then why is he wrong, and what does that mean for computer users and hackers?
He's an ideologue, not a hero. Heroism implies courage and noble qualities.<p>It doesn't detract from his authority on the subject, not in the least, but is he a hero? I don't think so.<p>He would likely scoff at being called a hero too.<p>In any event, the vast majority of people will know no privacy other than from each-other's affairs. Frankly I think the advent of cheap home delivery will push the privacy issue higher into the general consciousness, and people will be alarmed that <i>all</i> of their purchases are now tracked and indexed.<p>The gap between online and offline purchasing will disappear over the next 18-36 months, and those on the forefront of this will be in a significant position of power. The synthesis of Big Data(TM) between related firms will reach new heights, and <i>that</i> will actually scare people.
Just because you are paranoid, doesn't mean they are out to get you. I wouldn't use the word <i>hero</i>, but he did found the Free Software stuff while being intermittently homeless. He didn't sleep on the street. He slept in a hacker space where he worked. He finally got to exercise his right to vote when an article in a national publication validated that he was homeless and sleeping at his job. This convinced the Registrar's office to issue him his voter registration card.<p>So he certainly made significant sacrifices for what he believed in. I would not call him a <i>hero</i> because I think that cheapens the word. We typically apply that word to people who put themselves in harm's way for the greater good and my father, my ex, my ex's father and grandfather all served in the military. So I would not personally write a piece describing him with that term<p>But he did make personal sacrifices for a cause he believed in and to which he devoted himself while being crapped on and disrespected and managed to make a real difference in the world in spite of how much hostility he was met with. Props to him.
Stallman has been a bit hard on me in one interaction but I think that is just the way he is if you don't totally match his views.<p>I very much respect him and I think he has done enormous service with the FSF and arguing for privacy. I also like using the cloud and think a lot about this: secure and private personal and small group clouds. Not too difficult to set up for storage, email, web apps - but conveniences like Google Now are an imposibility unless a very large developer community contributed.
At risk of down votes I prefer my heroes to be a bit more sanitary :<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I25UeVXrEHQ</a>
Richard Stallman is paranoid.<p>I don't know in what world he lives, but it's not real. Like most people here, he values privacy way too much and doesn't seem to realize that we need as much information as possible about everything (including people) to make educated decisions as a society.<p>He's socially inept, and in no way a hero.