Actually, on 2015-03-16 he said he's been using a web browser and Tor. I don't know if the two are related and I don't know when he started using a common browser in a typical fashion.

Looking at the kerfuffle around LLVM/Clang you can find more of the same attitude from RMS—he doesn't have the ego invested in the work as his detractors claim he does (often without examples cited at all, sometimes as with the grandparent poster with wrong examples cited):

For GCC to be replaced by another technically superior compiler that defended freedom equally well would cause me some personal regret, but I would rejoice for the community's advance. The existence of LLVM is a terrible setback for our community precisely because it is not copylefted and can be used as the basis for nonfree compilers -- so that all contribution to LLVM directly helps proprietary software as much as it helps us.

Those aren't the words of someone who places ego above the good of the project or the public. For software freedom seekers, software freedom and defense of software freedom is the goal and good for the public.

I hate using non-open technologies like TCP/IP. They never once consulted me and now I have to go by their "standards" instead of what I want to do this week.

Firmware is software and computer users still need software freedom for all published software. This hasn't changed since Richard Stallman reached conclusions about the ethics of software over 30 years ago. Changing what device the software is loaded into or the form it takes when loaded doesn't change any of the underlying issues that all have to do with how people treat each other. This is also not an issue to be properly understood by "open source" focus on convenience, caving into business desires, or developmental methodology.

There are an incredible number of obstacles that a person can instantly recognize that even today, a computer can't.

And that list gets smaller and smaller all the time. When you look at the progress that's already been made, the last mile of automation is totally achievable. Around here a good third of the drivers on the road are old people who can barely see past the hood and another 10 percent are functional alcoholics. The handful of relatively competent people are texting or talking on the phone while they're driving. As someone who commutes by bike in this metallic soup of human incompetence, the transition to self-driving cars can't happen fast enough. I'll take my chances with machine intelligence and machine reflexes any day.

The underlying assumption to your comment is that human drivers are competent. That may be true in BF Nowhere Utah but, here in the civilized world, human drivers are fucking idiots. So, sure, go ahead and drive your pickup to the market. Around here I'd rather see a computer at the wheel than grandma.

If you want to say that RMS's position is pedantic, that's fine. Just understand that RMS has slightly different values than open source advocates and he works to keep those values. RMS views open source as dangerous to the freedom to have all changes made available because open source does not make any guarantee about it. Others, like ESR, aren't quite as concerned about that as long as some version of the source is available. Thus, you get open source. Free and open source software are not exactly the same thing though.

Open source advocates think that proprietary software is acceptable and free software advocates don't think proprietary software is ever acceptable, as RMS points out in his essays and talks dating back many years (1, 2). I'd hardly call that difference pedantic—being overly concerned with formal rules and trivial points of learning like a pedant. And the preservation of software freedom copyleft makes real can sometimes be okay to forgo but only after careful consideration. But the open source movement doesn't distinguish among licenses based on copyleft because that would draw attention to the very thing that movement was designed to silence and distract discussion away from talk of—software freedom.

Glenn Greenwald asks a more interesting and important question than /. encourages its readers to consider when Greenwald asks "What's Scarier: Terrorism, or Governments Blocking Websites in its Name?" and then he answers it, "More damage has been inflicted historically by censorship than by the "terrorism" used to justify it.". Considering how little of a threat terrorism is in the US relative to other known dangers ('Terrorism Still Less Deadly in US Than Lack of Health Insurance, Salmonella', 'Gun Murders vs. Terrorism by the Numbers') one has to wonder about other western countries such as France.

According to SCO's website:

The UNIX ABIs were never authorized for unrestricted use or distribution under the GPL in Linux®. As the copyright holder, SCO has never granted such permission. Nevertheless, many of the ABIs contained in Linux®, and improperly distributed under the GPL, are direct copies of our UNIX copyrighted software code.

Wasn't it proven that Novell owned any and all copyrights involved here? How long do you get to publicly libel someone (like everyone who uses Linux) before a judge can order you to cease and desist that idiocy?

Very true, but we already have and use an Apple TV. We have very little Apple-purchased content so it wouldn't be financially hard to switch to a different device (and I think we're out of HDMI ports so we'd more or less have to), but it'd be nicely convenient if we could get that content on what we're used to.

Yeah, we could do some AirPlay workaround but the Wife Approval Factor starts dropping quickly when that gets involved.

Fortunately, more informed parties disagree with you:

HTTP/2 doesn't require you to use TLS (the standard form of SSL, the Web's encryption layer), but its higher performance makes using encryption easier, since it reduces the impact on how fast your site seems.

In fact, many people believe that the only safe way to deploy the new protocol on the "open" Internet is to use encryption; Firefox and Chrome have said that they'll only support HTTP/2 using TLS.

They have two reasons for this. One is that deploying a new version of HTTP across the Internet is hard, because a lot of "middleboxes" like proxies and firewalls assume that HTTP/1 won't ever change, and they can introduce interoperability and even security problems if they try to interpret a HTTP/2 connection.

The other is that the Web is an increasingly dangerous place, and using more encryption is one way to mitigate a number of threats. By using HTTP/2 as a carrot for sites to use TLS, they're hoping that the overall security of the Web will improve.

So stick with plaintext HTTP/1.0 as long as you want, but the rest of us are moving to secure-by-default.

Yes, they do. The information I transmit to the site in the form of an HTTP request is something I want to be private from prying eyes. I don't care if it's not anything particularly incriminating! It's just no one else's business but mine and that website.

The things my mom texts me aren't sensitive - "Hi son! Here's a picture of my dog napping outside!" - but they're certainly private and I'd be pissed if I thought anyone was reading them. Every web request, every chat message, every email should be considered private until explicitly proven otherwise.

First, lots of things are sensitive. Would you want someone in the coffee shop watching you browse the NIH website for sexually transmitted diseases? It would be hideously expensive for each government agency to classify each and every URL as "OK for snooping" or "visitors probably want privacy", certainly several orders of magnitude harder and costlier than just saying that everything is sensitive and treating it accordingly.

Second, what's you're requirement for not having the security benefit? Given that certs are about $10 a year and require negligible resources, what is your compelling reason for not having encryption by default?

Third, there's a real and enormous benefit to having everything encrypted. If encryption is only applied to critical things, then the presence of encryption is a red flag that something is critical. When it's the normal, boring default mode and everything is encrypted, its presence is no longer an indicator that something sensitive is taking place.

This isn't an Apple TV thing. From the article:

Apple declined to comment on the reports. But the Journal said its sources suggested the tech giant is aiming for a June unveiling, ahead of a September launch of the TV service, compatible with all devices running iOS, including iPhones, iPads, and Apple TV boxes.

That's a pretty big deal for a lot of people, and the rumors are that it'll be unveiled at WWDC. I like stories like this: plausible, and soon enough to be interesting.

I am so, so ready to be done with Comcast. I'd pick this up in a heartbeat to get away from their ludicrously priced packaging (I don't want to rent a DVR just so I can watch baseball in HD!). Toss in the unbundled HBO subscription and this is close to my cord cutting dream.

Oh, and NBC? I'll be subsidizing this by dropping my Hulu Plus subscription. Don't for a second think that your programming is so valuable that I'll pay extra for it a la carte. This would be an excellent time to make nice with Apple and get over yourself.