Except for the kernel, pretty much everything I use is GNU or was inspired by GNU. From the coreutils to the window environment, passing through the compiler, most linux systems are half GNU.
Besides, we need activists like Stallman in the same way we need activists like Peta or activists like Greenpeace. They might be too radical and close-minded, but they always have a point; they force society to rethink some of its values, and act as whistle-blowers for some injustices that might go unnoticed.
Stallman is league different from those, he contributes both valuable product and coherent legal analysis. His only harm comes in a occasional bitter verbal lash at his opponents, and how his moral superiority makes compromisers feel uncomfortable.
Is this an attempt at mockery? Please, let me be the next 60-year-old with my code powering half of the planet, a philosophy thirty years ahead of its time, touring the world, with my laptop stolen en route to my next talk.
I could be wrong but I don't think he was a developer. From the pieces I've read it looks like his contribution to linux, seems to be distributing it through donations of old computers with linux installed to people / organizations in need.
He runs an organization/project called Reglue (http://reglue.org/). They give out computers to children who otherwise would not be able to get one.
If you live in Texas you should consider cleaning out your closet and donating some computers to the cause. They're basically looking for P4 class machines and better. Something gathering dust in your closet can changes a kid's life forever.
I disagree. Gladwell's long standing self-disclosure is a serious analysis on his own motivations and corporate relationships. http://www.gladwell.com/disclosure.html . Claiming that he is a corporate shill seems unfair. Despite his "igonvalues" issues, I haven't seen any serious corporate bias in his works. Are you sure your own remarks aren't due to some bias that you may have?
Slightly offtopic, I read a comment somewhere that asked what would have happened if the killer had been an Arab. It is interesting. When the killer is one of our own, we are able to quickly switch off group-think and acknowledge that the killer was insane. In contrast, when the killer is of an outgroup, we instantly assign group blame and then exact group retribution.
Reading the comments here, you wouldn't be blamed for thinking we (the side of rational thinking and intelligence) have lost. The question you should ask yourselves is whether the CIA, or even a big chunk of our government are working to protect us or working to protect their own interests. They do these things in our name. Murder civilians and call it collateral damage. They make up fake dossiers and our media swallows it whole. What have we come to? We used to be the shining city on the hill. We didn't need to invade people to "protect" ourselves.