RMS is as close to the opposite of hypocrite as it gets. He definitely practices what he preaches to the degree that he used a slow Loongson when he couldn't get an Intel machine with free BIOS, for example.
He might not act diplomatic, be way outside social norms, or not people-please, but that does not make him a hypocrite.
No electric meter at his house, no internet (even if his router is running open source, the ISP he's connected to certainly isn't), no transportation of any kind, no entertainment of any kind, no shopping of any kind (inventory management, cash registers, logistics). The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of his precious decade old laptop was running proprietary software (not to mention all the small firmwares like wifi and Ethernet controllers).
You cannot escape it.
So, we should be pragmatic about it. We should push for it, but realize that it's impossible to live in society without interacting with closed source software.
> I firmly refuse to install non-free software or tolerate its installed presence on my computer or on computers set up for me.
> However, if I am visiting somewhere and the machines available nearby happen to contain non-free software, through no doing of mine, I don't refuse to touch them. I will use them briefly for tasks such as browsing. This limited usage doesn't give my assent to the software's license, or make me responsible its being present in the computer, or make me the possessor of a copy of it, so I don't see an ethical obligation to refrain from this. Of course, I explain to the local people why they should migrate the machines to free software, but I don't push them hard, because annoying them is not the way to convince them.
> Likewise, I don't need to worry about what software is in a kiosk, pay phone, or ATM that I am using. I hope their owners migrate them to free software, for their sake, but there's no need for me to refuse to touch them until then. (I do consider what those machines and their owners might do with my personal data, but that's a different issue, which would arise just the same even if they did use free software. My response to that issue is to minimize those activities which give them any data about me.)
> That's my policy about using a machine once in a while. If I were to use it for an hour every day, that would no longer be "once in a while" — it would be regular use. At that point, I would start to feel the heavy hand of any nonfree software in that computer, and feel the duty to arrange to use a liberated computer instead.
> As for microwave ovens and other appliances, if updating software is not a normal part of use of the device, then it is not a computer. In that case, I think the user need not take cognizance of whether the device contains a processor and software, or is built some other way. However, if it has an "update firmware" button, that means installing different software is a normal part of use, so it is a computer.
How do you figure this. Cars did not always have computers in them, and you can still find older cars available.
>The equipment used to manufacture all the pieces of
Who actually cares about this? The consumer should only care about the thing produced.
And yes, he is concerned about microcode--he still uses a Core 2 Duo laptop that can work without the microcode blobs in firmware, as opposed to more modern processors, for that exact reason.
Like the Amish.
Both condemn certain tech, but then use it. Both are not being honest, but hypocrites.
It's also a poor characterization of the anabaptists, for that matter - they are not in general against technology but against the impacts of particular technology (nothing to do with RMS's concerns, theirs are about community).
For example, some anabaptist communities disallow cars, some allow them in limited ways, some allow them completely - but this is decided based not on a doctrine but on their communities evaluation on the impact of peoples housing spreading apart...
You are vastly mischaracterizing the few sentences I wrote.
In the case of RMS it is non-free software tech. In the case of the Amish it is many kinds of tech and depends (as the child comment mentions) on the community. One community I lived among they weren’t allowed to own phones, but they would borrow them all the time.
To call everybody to stop using non-free software phones while depending on thise same people to own them and let you borrow them in order to live is hypocritical. Sorry if that bothers you.
I thought I remembered other instances, but none of them come to mind and obviously googling has turned up a ton of opinion pieces without a lot of actual substantative points made, so I'll leave it at that; not enough to argue that he is, by his nature, a hypocrite, but also not 100% pure to his principles in every circumstance.
In fact, he has stated his principles/policies publicly and clearly, and someone posted it here as well. He never says "You are not supposed to use someone else's cellphone, but it's okay when I use it." That would make him a hypocrite.
Thus your example is a strawman here, with the implicit assumption that he has said "you ought not to use any cellphone" which he never said.
I think most misunderstandings of RMS come from the fact that people project on him what they think he would say and how he would act, not what he actually says and how he actually acts; while assuming he is merely some sort of activist engaging in civil disobedience and boycott, just trying to make a point and show the world a pure example of how to live. The way he should actually be thought of is he is fighting a war against people building proprietary software that, based on his theory, inevitably will lead to unjust power over users' lives through control over their devices. He is very pragmatic in that sense and willing to take any strategic advantage he can get in that fight, not deprive himself of that just to make a point. My understanding is at the beginning he used proprietary UNIX compilers to build GCC, for example.
Maybe he's not being hypocritical, but that position -- I will pragmatically use others' phones for my convenience, but I will not retain one myself -- just seems shitty. Not sure why, maybe because it's even less of a universally applicable tenet than "phones are bad, mmkay," it's just "I'll use the systems as convenient for me, no matter how others may suffer under them."
I think he makes a pretty big tradeoff that nobody else would, without completely shooting himself in the foot. Even if he had a fully FOSS phone, the people he called probably wouldn't. He's drawn the line far enough out that I don't doubt his sincerity.
It's the well dressed, well socially adjusted people with their silver tongues that convinced the masses that giving up privacy is in their interest. People like that are the people responsible for the shitshow we're now observing.
RMS is strongly opinionated, and without that kind of strong conviction, we would be far worse off. I do agree he's taking an extreme position, but when you're standing against giants with money and power, being extreme is sometimes the only way to stand a chance.
For whatever failing RMS has, hypocrite is obviously not one. There are few people on the world who are so consistent in their message and actions as RMS.