I disagree. His actions lately have driven many, including myself, away from supporting GNU projects and into supporting other free alternatives. Using the GPL 3 on software such as gcc has caused many people, such as Apple, the FreeBSD foundation, and the OpenBSD foundation, to seek alternative sources for GNU software, such as the clang project and the pcc compiler project. His reluctance to use modern technology, such as cell phones, has distanced himself from many who realize the benefits of such actions, and who know that such devices are available prepaid, and with off buttons, for if you want to use them anonymously. His petty name-calling of closed-source products that he doesn't like, such as iClone for the iPhone, has served to turn off many to his message, to the detriment of the FOSS community.
I agree with many of his principles, however, his time has come and gone. His view of computing seems stuck to how it existed 25-30 years ago, which is proving increasingly detrimental to recruiting new people to the cause of Free Software. By ignoring why people use closed products, such as his views on why Free Software users would use closed source dictation software ( https://lists.csail.mit.edu/pipermail/csail-related/2012-Feb... ), he has made Free Software less capable of competing because it doesn't do what people expect software to do. Once he realizes this, and that one can and should look at why people use alternatives to GNU software, then we can possibly move forward. Unfortunately, I don't have much hope that that will happen as long as RMS is at the helm.
I see his role a bit different - RMS stance on software freedom should be understood as a constitution. Setting in stone the ground rules that can then be amended, but not overturned.
Sure - current generations deal with a different reality compared to when he started out, but there is still paramount value in having his philosophy at heart. He may be old fashioned when it comes to new technology and he sure is quirky in a way that drives away some people, but all that doesn't stop people from interpreting what he has done and applying it to the world today.
I think the real problem is that you put RMS on a pedestal that he doesn't belong on. He is not the root node for what happens in Free Software today and I'm sure that the examples you cited weren't really that much about him, or even about the GPL3.
He has a very distinct, central viewpoint: freedom - and the link you quoted shows that you simply have a differing opinion about where to start thinking about software. You start with the user expecting features, RMS starts with the user deserving freedom. Both viewpoints have value, but RMS represents a constant that shouldn't be messed with and does not necessarily get in the way of your objective.
It is much more sensible to respect his service and do your best to live up to the standard he has set than to deconstruct his persona based on it being somewhat anachronistic. In my opinion, the best progress is made in dialog with our history, not in annoyed, knee-jerk revolt against it.
