Well, you know what the free software people say, proprietary software is malware.
Perhaps Stallman is more right than wrong.
Perhaps Stallman is more right than wrong.
Last but not least: he lacks the ability to recognize the advantages (if only for implementing his own goals) of perspective-taking, compromise, being physically presentable (ie dressed decently, hair groomed, body clean), the slightest bit amicable/sociable...
....and not doing things that are socially repugnant. Such as threatening suicide when women won't date him (numerous independent accounts of such behavior, mostly with women who were very young), picking his toe cheese and eating it on a stage (there is video proof of this), repeatedly expressing extreme views around sex trafficking and pedophilia (and then when called out on it, nothing but petulance), hosting semi-clothed cuddle sessions on bare mattresses in his office at a university campus office building, and so on.
He's so blind that he can't even see that his continued presence at the FSF in a leadership role has cost the FSF the vast majority of its working relationships with other organizations, free software or corporate. The FSF board is right there next to him; they're so devoted to him that even when almost the entire open source community says "if you won't fire Stallman, we're done working with you", they won't get rid of him.
Stallman and the FSF had been increasingly irrelevant in the thirty years proceeding the whole pedo/trafficking emails and sexual harassment blow-up. Given the reaction from both, they've since become even more irrelevant.
The secondary problem is that everyone's paycheck here depends on him being wrong, so we get character assassination instead.
* Edit: the problems with software licensing which is the primary thing people know him for. See how many bios even mention his software development work, and then see how many fail to mention his free software zealotry. To even assume his development accomplishments are what people are talking about when discussing his public activities is strange even in a crowd of software developers. If he wrote that same exact software for IBM, or even if he had written it for GNU and not worn crazy outfits to software conventions, nobody would be talking about him 'at all.'
You know, the compiler that kept free software running between 1990 and 2015?
The sheer erasure of his contributions would be comical if it wasn't done so maliciously.
As for absolutes, consider deadly poison: how much is okay? None, really-you can be poisoned with a lot, or a little, but you’re still dead.
This is just telling on yourself.
What Stallman does, and all he has claimed to do, is set moral standards for technology. It's not his job to compromise any more than it's the job of a scale to tell you something weighs exactly a kilogram if it's close enough to a kilogram, the difference probably won't matter, you should be grateful for what you have, are you going to throw it away just because it isn't exactly a kilogram, it'll probably work as well as a kilogram's worth for most functions, so did you really actually need an entire kilogram?
At best you're condemning what you believe in for the sake of what benefits you.
At worst you're pretending to think that Stallman's ideas about software are correct (or as liberals say "perfect") when you actually think they're contemptible or dangerous, but admitting that you disagree with the concept of software freedom itself would cause the people who you want to demean Stallman to most to ignore you completely.
The FSF is as relevant as it's always been, and its enemies are who they always were. If they listened to you and both killed the messenger and compromised the message (which seem to be your only suggestions), they would be a non-existent organization.