Stallman has compromised in some ways, even when it comes to using proprietary software. For example, before there was grub I believe he made an exception and u

Stallman has compromised in some ways, even when it comes to using proprietary software. For example, before there was grub I believe he made an exception and used non-free bios. Ultiamtely, even RMS seems to suggest a convenience standard. If the tradeoff is too harsh, at some point it is permissible to use proprietary software. And this is even leaving aside the various non-relative exceptions he has made, such as use of proprietary software in devices that are not primarily for general purpose computing. So even RMS is OK with proprietary software where there are no free alternatives, or where using proprietary software is somehow not part of a "computer". But now that there is a good free system in Gnu + Linux, the user has no excuse for using proprietary programs in general computing. There is still a sacrifice to live by RMS' standards, but it is relatively small compared with, say, the sacrifices demanded of civil rights campaigners in the 60s. Of course, one could debate whether reasonable free alternatives exist in certain areas. Perhaps to RMS it is only a minor inconvenience to use only free software to view web pages, and to avoid websites that run proprietary scripts or that spy on users. What kind of moral weakling would betray the cause of freedom for the convenience of one-click ordering of crap on Amazon. The obvious weakness to this argument is that there are surely people for which proprietary software offers convenience that they view as essential to their lives. This is a hard problem, both in philosophy and practice.