Then again, the only reason I was even interested in following the development was because I had been considering to buy a new phone after 5 years to use Graphene OS.

I guess you could try this out empirically, by creating a throwaway Email address and sending him a dry, technical question under a female name, and see how he responds.

That being said: I do agree that some of the statements made in the past were tasteless, and I am disappointed that he did so. Yet when reading his own texts like https://stallman.org/articles/necessary-changes.html, I have to either conclude that he agrees but has made mistakes or is himself lying.

Another thing might be that I have only had contact with him via Email. Perhaps he is different in person, that I cannot say.

It was always a hunch, but I suspected that part of the reason they stopped is that they reached a plateau, while the open letter was continuing to rise in popularity.

https://linuxreviews.org/Grass-roots_Richard_Stallman_Suppor...

Regarding the other accusations, my understanding is that they are unfounded or intentional misrepresentations

https://stallmansupport.org/debunking-false-accusations-agai...

I have personally communicated with RMS, even privately, and see a discrepancy between the way he is portrayed and the way he behaves on a regular basis. Of course, I might have just caught his good and kind side, who knows? Either way, my impression remains that those who see him as bad want to see him as bad.

I've been hearing this a lot recently, and while I don't doubt that there are people who are affected by ADHD, it seems to me that the condition can very easily be treated as an excuse. Certainly people without ADHD can get distracted, and someone with ADHD wouldn't be indistractable if they didn't have ADHD, right? So how do you distinguish between cases where ADHD is actually the cause and where someone uses it as an excuse (e.g. there was this guy on Twitter recently who claimed he could only use Twitter and not a blog because of AHDH, which sound like an excuse for some other behaviour to me)?

You can also pass C-x e a 0-prefix argument (M-0 C-x e) and it will repeat the macro until the bell rings, which usually happens when a movement command like forward-line, forward-sexp, etc. reaches the end of a buffer.

Another strategy is to record a macro that only operates on a single line, then mark the region you want to repeat it in for every line and then execute it on all these lines using C-x C-k r.

In my eyes it is the more idiomatic implementation.

Also, if there are two driver implementations, as is often the case for GPUs, which will be preferred?