> But RMS has never really been pragmatic in the sense I think you mean here.
I didn't use "pragmatic" as an adjective describing RMS or a role RMS might be in at all, so I'm not really sure what you are saying. RMS is, and has for a long time been, acting in the role that I stated that the "he doesn't know enough anymore" [about the way working developers now actually build software] claim is relevant to his suitability, which is simply making specific recommendations about what software features and usage restrictions should, or should not, be present to achieve the goals of his ideology.
> Just because you disagree with some of the results of his principles
My position on Stallman's principles is orthogonal to my belief that his particular recommended policies are often counterproductive to achieving his stated principles. The post you are responding to is about the latter, not the former.
But it doesn't matter how developers build software today. When RMS started, software developers used (largely) closed IDEs, operating systems, compilers, etc. His principles are an entirely separate matter and he has stated over and over and over again that he doesn't care if his principles are inconvenient or if adherence to his principles causes technology to advance at a slower rate or software to be less useful. So his knowledge of "modern" software development really doesn't matter.
> But it doesn't matter how developers build software today.
It does if you are trying to make choices about how to use management of which features to include or exclude in copyleft software targeted at software developers as a mechanism to promote the goals of an ideology with a specific view of software freedom.
> His principles are an entirely separate matter and he has stated over and over and over again that he doesn't care if his principles are inconvenient or if adherence to his principles causes technology to advance at a slower rate
But he presumably cares about whether his decisions result in a world that reflects his principles less rather than one that reflects his principles more. And that's where knowledge of the present pragmatics are important when it comes to tactical choices to advance his ideology.
> But he presumably cares about whether his decisions result in a world that reflects his principles less rather than one that reflects his principles more.
No, not if it means compromising the principles themselves. That's the beauty of RMS, he really isn't pragmatic. He isn't willing to compromise, at all, ever. And that's why he is so important, because he represents an unwavering ideal, you don't have to worry about him moving the goal posts, if you hitch yourself to RMS and let out 100 feet of rope, you know that you will always be 100 feet from free software purity.
I didn't use "pragmatic" as an adjective describing RMS or a role RMS might be in at all, so I'm not really sure what you are saying. RMS is, and has for a long time been, acting in the role that I stated that the "he doesn't know enough anymore" [about the way working developers now actually build software] claim is relevant to his suitability, which is simply making specific recommendations about what software features and usage restrictions should, or should not, be present to achieve the goals of his ideology.
> Just because you disagree with some of the results of his principles
My position on Stallman's principles is orthogonal to my belief that his particular recommended policies are often counterproductive to achieving his stated principles. The post you are responding to is about the latter, not the former.