RMS may be legendary but he's no John Carmack or whomever else. I use emacs every day, and nobody who does the same can honestly say the foundations are good. The performance is atrocious. The UI locks up when you make network calls because the whole thing is single threaded. The whole thing is a mess of spaghetti code and there are multiple instances of core developers like Eli Zarerski admitting on emacs-devel that they don't know how <internal core system> works.
RMS is a visionary but as an actual software developer he's pretty mid.
Nobody is saying that their minimal default install is itself problematic.
But trumpeting your default install's safety record doesn't actually say much when the default install doesn't actually do anything. As soon as you add a package or a port you're beyond "default install" territory and their vaunted security reputation's coverage.
>writing code is the actual fun part of the job though.
You mean typing the actual code into the editor is the fun part for you? For me, the fun part has always been "cause computer to do novel things", and actually typing/compiling/debugging the code is just a speed bump on the way to something fun.
>Sorry, why are their sources of funding relevant?
Because money is power, are you new?
You claimed that some unspecified "They" are attempting to force a socialist utopia/dystopia upon us, and that "They" are seeking to end private ownership because socialism. You seem to be unable to articulate who "They" are, from where "They" derive their power, or who is funding "Them".
>If they’re in power or have influence, it could largely be a grassroots movement and it doesn’t matter?
Grassroots movements quite simply do not have power or influence unless either:
1. they're well-funded, in which case see my previous point. Where does that money come from? or
2. they're supported by a significant majority of the public, in which case it makes no sense to refer to "They" in such a way as to insinuate there is a small minority of powerful figures forcing these issues upon an unwitting or unwilling public. If the movement enjoys broad popular support (unlikely!), then there is no conspiracy and you simply have a minority opinion. In that case, deal with it.
>[seeking to] mandate digital currencies, mandate digital IDs, impose "chat control" and eliminate all privacy.
None of this has anything to do with a purported green movement that seeks to end private ownership of cars. Modern cars are easy to track, for starters.
https://stackgho.st