I thought they'd booted him.
That's who they think is the best leader to grow the Free Software movement.
And no charitable reading of a comment that says "Truth always lies in the middle. I suggest to read this article by Hannah Wolfman-Jones with a response from civil-rights expert Nadine Strossen about the whole ordeal and make up your mind" implies said article will only show the pro-Stallman point of view (literally to sell a book with his name on it) while arguments pro the other side are to be left entirely as an exercise for the reader, rather than presenting a point and counterpoint.
ftfy
Free Software is first and foremost a political movement. It would be better to have someone at the helm who isn't totally inept at navigating media and politics.
I never implied he would've had the opportunity.
I should've elaborated, I meant a 15 year old traveling to eastern European lecture halls to blah blah blah GNU would be better than a 30 yr retired, water bucket showering, absent minded professor-like toe jam muncher.
it held so much promise. but now open source just exists to empower capitalists with the free labor of others. It's more than a dead dream, it's grown into something inverted against itself.
Linux is everywhere and effectively dead at the same time. What's the point anymore.
Technology is just one big HR department, one big ticket system, one big pair of khakis we can all collectively wear, one big Teams call. All of it.
It was all a mistake.
So will the FSF just cease operations when he dies?
"So I asked Bostic himself. Originally, his reply was: 'It’s true. John Gillmore & Richard Stallman convinced me that opening up the sources was worthwhile, we wouldn’t have done that without their urging.'"