You have to realize that RMS's goal isn't to "steer important projects", and you should give him more credit in that he probably could be "connected with the present technology" if he wanted to.
The fact that "he doesn't know enough anymore" doesn't say much about Stallman; instead it says a lot about how his goal of making sure software is libre has been shoved aside by everyone else for other priorities.
Also, RMS is one of the most humble people on the scene, and will freely admit to not knowing something until he lives and breathes it.
> The fact that "he doesn't know enough anymore" doesn't say much about Stallman
Yeah, actually, it does: specifically, its says a lot about his qualifications to apply theoretical ideals to real world situations. To intelligently plan how to achieve the goals of the ideology, you need more than devotion to and deep understanding of the ideology, you need deep understanding of the existing context to understand the pragmatics of moving toward the goals of the ideology in that context.
But RMS has never really been pragmatic in the sense I think you mean here. RMS is the spiritual leader, other people have always done a lot of the implementation. When the principles collide with the ability to do some specific thing, RMS has pretty much always come down on the side of the principles. This is nothing new.
Just because you disagree with some of the results of his principles, probably because you're focused on getting shit done in your little corner of the world (I'm typing this on a Mac, I'm just like you), doesn't mean that RMS is somehow fundamentally flawed or incapable of being the philosophical leader of a movement.
> 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'd be really surprised if most of the people working on these marque GNU/FSF projects weren't happy with GPL/copyleft, at least for these "complete" programs (as opposed to libraries like the GPLed GNU Scientific Library).
> Are you actually saying you think the FSF have failed?
I think the FSF has failed in making popular RMS's extremist exclusionary ideology which sees the eradication of non-Free software as a moral imperative, even at the cost of technological progress and of the utility of Free software for its technical, rather than ideological, functions.
I think the FSF has succeeded in using copyleft licensing to create a critical mass of Free Software which established well the pragmatic case for Free software, and -- because the pragmatic case for Free software has been so well made -- has demonstrated (entirely unintentionally) the conflict between (larger, AFAICT) group those whose goal is increased availability, utility, attractiveness, and use of Free software and the (smaller, again AFAICT) group whose goal is RMS's one of eradication of non-Free software and avoidance of Free software utility in producing/generating non-Free software.
it says a lot about how his goal of making sure software is libre has been shoved aside by everyone else for other priorities.
I'd call this a deep problem with how the FSF has operated to-date. It's not that libre software isn't important, or hasn't had a huge impact on the software world. But the very idea that it should be perceived as the ultimate priority in the existence of software is wrong. That viewpoint fails to understand or acknowledge how people use software and what other important risks they perceive and face related to software. As such, our libre utopia falls apart because we didn't understand that it had to be inhabited by real humans.
he probably could be "connected with the present technology" if he wanted to.
Case in point. Understanding how people use and are affected by "present technology" is key to follow-on innovations after copyleft. IMO, a significant risk to libre software is that its social innovation has not continued to adapt to the changing software landscape. For a time, that was fine because we had the heyday of free software's expansion to worry about. But there's been this tacit (or maybe explicit) assumption in the community that the GPL and "belief" in libre software are enough. But in fact, I'll posit that the real goal is to build sustaining social infrastructure for free software and information culture.
The fact that "he doesn't know enough anymore" doesn't say much about Stallman; instead it says a lot about how his goal of making sure software is libre has been shoved aside by everyone else for other priorities.
Also, RMS is one of the most humble people on the scene, and will freely admit to not knowing something until he lives and breathes it.