I don't really see how this is valuable, and I see a lot of ways in which this is harmful to the cause. It's not explaining the message very well, it's actively turning people off, and it's preventing some free software from being as useful as it could be.
You can keep long-term goals in mind while also working towards smaller short-term goals. Almost every political party and lobby organisation in the world is doing exactly that.
Here Stallman again rails against Ubuntu. Okay, maybe Ubuntu isn't perfect, but s/Microsoft windows/Ubuntu/ would be quite an improvement, and especially since the 100% free/libre stuff he recommends are caveated to hell it's the only pragmatic/realistic option there is right now – not necessarily Ubuntu itself, but some distro which includes the same firmware, nVidia drivers, and such. And if a lot of people are actually running Ubuntu/Linux you end up having a lot more leverage.
By focusing only on the endpoint you're actually doing more short-term thinking rather than playing the long game.
But if Stallman is actually pursuing the OP's idea of extending the Overton window, then he's specifically not trying to accomplish short-term goals. Other people can and should be working on those short-term goals. Stallman, meanwhile, is trying to stretch the playing field out far enough that the smaller goals seem very reasonable by comparison to the extreme that he creates.
I'm not sure that Stallman is intentionally positioning himself this way (he seems to sincerely believe his all-or-nothing stance), but I could see it actually working. The big problem with Stallman is that he has to be at least moderately credible in order to extend the Overton window, but he seems to perpetually be right on the edge of being completely dismissed. If that happens then the window snaps back shut.
"[Stallman] seems to sincerely believe his all-or-nothing stance"
Richard Stallman has largely been not averse to pragmatism, he is the sort that is willing to clearly articulate his stance as to what he thinks is right, but has also been willing to endorse all sorts of incrementalism. For example:
"In response to the change of license, Richard Stallman of the Free Software
Foundation says, "I agree. It is wise to make some of the Ogg Vorbis code
available for use in proprietary software, so that commercial companies doing
proprietary software will use it, and help Vorbis succeed in competition with
other formats that would be restricted against our use.""
(I am desperately trying to avoid inserting a Bernie Sanders analogy here..)
> I see a lot of ways in which this is harmful to the cause.
I'm trying to understand your meaning. You went on to say:
> You can keep long-term goals in mind while also working towards smaller short-term goals. Almost every political party and lobby organisation in the world is doing exactly that.
But every example of such political parties/organizations I can think of (in my experience) has 'puritanical' wings that serve to establish the key direction.
> It's not explaining the message very well, it's actively turning people off, and it's preventing some free software from being as useful as it could be.
I was unable to follow your logic. Perhaps actual example of this happening would be useful.
> By focusing only on the endpoint you're actually doing more short-term thinking rather than playing the long game.
Forgive me, but it appears like you're focusing on practically achievable goals rather than having a long term plan. If Ubuntu continued along its current path of just partnering with vendors, only "they" being able to build the signed boot images that machines boot, then it is not unreasonable to suspect that at some point users will lose all ability to build their own kernel for their machine.
The cause would likely not exist or at least be much weaker if not for Stallman and the FSF and GNU. Ubuntu isn't going to stop what they are doing because of Stallman's ideas.
> The cause would likely not exist or at least be much weaker if not for Stallman and the FSF and GNU.
Sure, but that was back in the 80s and this is now.
That someone had a lot of good ideas and did good work 35 years ago doesn't mean they're not hampering it today. I once worked for a business where the owner worked very hard to build things up (or so I heard), but when I worked there all he really used his business for was to show his boyfriends around to impress them or something; I rarely saw him. That's all fine, except that the business was directionless and basic stuff wasn't getting done (like, say, my employment contract). Eventually there was a bit of an intervention and he was ousted (his dad also owned part of the company), which was badly needed because he was really running things in to the ground, in spite of having built it up in the first place.
> Ubuntu isn't going to stop what they are doing because of Stallman's ideas.
No, but the FSF could be promoting Ubuntu instead of railing against it. If I'm interested in Free Software and find the FSF website then all I get are unpractical solutions.
But what the FSF really should be doing is lobby this kind of thing with governments, schools, corporations and such.
You can keep long-term goals in mind while also working towards smaller short-term goals. Almost every political party and lobby organisation in the world is doing exactly that.
Here Stallman again rails against Ubuntu. Okay, maybe Ubuntu isn't perfect, but s/Microsoft windows/Ubuntu/ would be quite an improvement, and especially since the 100% free/libre stuff he recommends are caveated to hell it's the only pragmatic/realistic option there is right now – not necessarily Ubuntu itself, but some distro which includes the same firmware, nVidia drivers, and such. And if a lot of people are actually running Ubuntu/Linux you end up having a lot more leverage.
By focusing only on the endpoint you're actually doing more short-term thinking rather than playing the long game.