Prev: Emacs Time Line, Graphical Chart by Jamie Zawinski - Valuable Resource for Newbies - written: 8-Mar-1999, updated: 29-Oct-2007
Next: Your Helping Heart
From: bolega on 19 Jul 2010 03:29 This interview is NOT found on Richard Stallman's FSF or GNU sites. I did a google search for this string in title and it did not appear. Newbies would find it immensely hard to locate it in the absence of knowledge of its existence. Original substituted with these to make length shorter. LC: = Linuxcare: R: = Richard: RS: = Richard Stallman: LWT: = LinuxWorld Today: # [Dec 14, 1999] Linuxcare - Linuxcare Interviews # LC: One of my favorite documents on the GNU web site is a talk you gave at Sweden's Royal Institute of Technology in 1986. The way that talk was structured was 1/3 historical, 1/3 technical, and 1/3 social. I was wondering if we could spend a bit of time to discuss the technical part now. R: Okay. LC: I understand it's not your focus right now. One of the initial questions I have is since the portability of ITS [Incompatible Timesharing System] failed... R: It had no portability. LC: Okay, then in the absence of portability, what really made you think that UNIX was a good idea? R: It was a portable operating system and it had real users on different kinds of machines. So it wasn't just portable in theory, but the portability had been tested. In addition, UNIX had some good ideas by the standards of the day. Nowadays we take them for granted perhaps, but compared with other operating systems that I had worked on they were interesting and powerful; things like pipes and redirection, shell programming, the convenient fork() and exec() system calls; these were an advance. So I thought UNIX was a pretty good idea. Since I had never used it, I didn't know about some of the things that were actually badly designed. There were some ways in which UNIX was a step backwards from the other operating systems I had worked on. For example, the lack of atomic supersede. These days we've pretty much forgotten what that is. It means that when a program starts to write a file in UNIX, it starts by truncating the file to zero length, then it rewrites the contents. This means if somebody tries to read it at that time they will get a half written file. On the operating systems I used in the 1970s, there was no danger of that because the new version would appear instantaneously when it was closed. Until a certain point, anybody reading the file would get the old version, and then instantly it would be replaced by the new version. So anybody reading the file would always get a complete version. LC: For example, sometimes it's nice to be able to "tail" a file as it's being created. R: Yes it is. There are some uses in that, but it seems to me that having a special system call you can use to get at a file being written is better than lacking atomic supersede. At least there was some way you could get to look at the file while it was being written. "I don't like the idea of having security within a shared computer system at all. I also don't like the idea of saying no to everyone by default." --Richard Stallman LC: Doesn't file locking take care of a lot of that? R: To an extent it works. EMACS has the ability to write it under another name and rename it. Of course, there's no other name you can be sure won't cause a problem. There is some ugliness in the design of UNIX, but fortunately most of it is pretty good. LC: One of the ugly points you mentioned in the 1986 talk was that of a security model. You explained that rather than make it easy for people to do the right thing, it simply forbids them from doing the wrong thing. R: You're mixing several issues. One is that I don't like the idea of having security within a shared computer system at all. I also don't like the idea of saying no to everyone by default. Now, in fact, I do that. Our computers have security now, and because I am so bitter about what I have done, I'm so ashamed of what I have done, that I treat myself like one of those outsiders. I cannot log in remotely to the new machines. I know a way that I could, but I won't do it because the same maltreatment I am giving to everybody I must give to myself as well out of shame. LC: One thing I noted in talking to Richard Stevens was the fact that you were pretty responsible for coming up with the name POSIX. R: Yes. LC: Originally it was going to be IEEEIX. R: I was part of the committee, and that's why I knew what it was going to be called. When I realized people were all going to be calling it "UNIX-like," standards for "UNIX-like" operating systems, because they didn't want to say IEEEIX, I decided I had better get them a euphonious name on the double. This was after the standard had been finalized and they were about to officially publish it. LC: It might be said that the new system could almost be a reference to the product. R: It could, except that we don't religiously try to follow it. You have the POSIXLY_CORRECT environment variable. LC: There are specific examples where POSIX is specifically seen as backwards compatibility. R: Basically, my attitude towards standards is that they are useful. They help users figure out how to support a variety of systems, and then they help system implementers figure out how to give the users what the users will expect. But you shouldn't treat standards as though they were gods. There's no need to. We support standards in the ways that are useful to users, and we depart from them when that becomes more useful to users. LC: Can you think of any major coups or major features that were brought to the POSIX table? R: I can't remember any more. That was in the 1980s. However, I do remember one where we didn't succeed in persuading them. This was in the POSIX.2 specification for the utilities. They made a decision that they would follow System V by default, and in System V when you did "df" or "du," file sizes were measured in disk block units of bytes. LC: Right; instead of kilobytes. R: Well, it occurred to me that this was not good for anybody, so I asked them if they could please change it for the sake of the users. They said, "No, our rules say we follow System V." So I took a poll and asked users which they preferred, and it was 20:1 in favor of kilobytes. I sent them the poll results and they said they didn't care. Unfortunately, I didn't catch this at a time when I could officially object to it. It was already approved and we had already had a chance to object, so all I could do was make a comment. So I couldn't block approval of the standard because I was a voting member of the committee. I couldn't block approval of the standard on those grounds, so instead... speaking of coups, this was about the time of the coup that eliminated the Soviet Union. So, I posted a notice about the coup in which the evil repressive forces of POSIX were being thrown off, and as we speak, teams of new developers are taking control of the major new utilities because they were making the changes to support K by default. To have an excuse to say that we still support the spec, if you define the environment variable, POSIX_ME_HARDER was the original way. Then a slightly prudish board member convinced me to change it to POSIXLY_CORRECT which I now think was a mistake. I should have left it as POSIX_ME_HARDER. LC: I'll ask a stupid question. Have you put any Easter eggs into anything? Just some wacky key code combination or something? R: I did once. It was a joke about the C specification which said #pragma was supposed to do something about implementation design. So I decided that a particular #pragma should do some absurd thing, just to point out that it's ridiculous to use pragma for anything, because you never can tell what it's going to do in some other compiler. LC: Which pragma was it? R: I don't remember, but we took it out. There was some pragma that other people were using and we decided to have compatibility to support it. We took that out and made it something that was somewhat useful. The other problem with pragma is you can't use it in macros. This means that for almost all purposes it's a bad solution. To have a mechanism that's guaranteed to be wrong is inappropriate for almost all cases. LC: Right. R: I think they finally got the message and started designing other mechanisms that could be used inside a macro extension. We did eventually find one situation where a pragma could actually be used to be appropriate because it was something that never was useful to do in a macro. I can't remember what it is, but I think you might be able to find it in the GCC manual. LC: Speaking of GCC, we've got a couple of questions submitted here by somebody. R: Okay. Linuxare: To what extent does the basic architecture of GCC need changes to support the language front-ends, such as the new GCC Java compiler? R: I don't know anything about what's happening with the Java compiler. I stopped dealing with GCC around 1992 and I don't know what changes, if any, were needed. Some changes were needed mainly in the tree data structure, which is what programs get parsed into. Occasionally, when you handle a language that has the kind of construct that hasn't been handled before, if there's no way to represent it with the existing tree data structure, you need to add something so you can represent it. Things like methods and core methods needed a way to be represented, so we added them. LC: Does GCC still use a LISP-like intermediary language? R: Printed syntax is what's LISP-like. It's not really LISP-like in the sense that it consists of tupelos that point to a number of other tupelos, which is not by any means a new format for priority use. It's printed out in a LISP-like syntax because that makes it easy to work with in EMACS. LC: How did you come to choose LISP as the EMACS engine? R: LISP is the most powerful programming language, and if you want an interpreter, LISP is the best. None of the other languages come anywhere near LISP in their power. The most exciting things about LISP are read, eval, and print. If you look at other languages, they have no equivalent for any of those. LC: Why are there so many parameters? R: The minimal set of parameters are small, but on the other hand, there are many standard functions available to do lots of interesting things with lists. With other languages, you need to define exactly the data types you want and define all of the basic things for working on them. Well, they're starting to wise up about template libraries where you can define various kinds of applications, specific list data types, and then have various functions that you can substantiate for any one of those. However, you're still limiting each of those data types you define to using one particular data type for the elements, which is not very convenient. With lists, you have one data type, and you can put anything in any list. You can mix together different kinds of types of elements. It's so flexible. LC: One technical point is you don't necessarily limit yourself to a specific set, but the beautiful thing about LISP is that everything is a list. R: Yeah, everything is generic. LC: You can build functions using a very small set of primitives. Those functions become useable over lists themselves, or lists of lists and so on. R: Any list of anything in your program and you can have all these built in things that you can do. Not only that, programs are representable as data, which gives you all sorts of convenient, powerful things. LC: That's not unique to LISP though. R: Well, it is mostly unique to LISP. Yes, you can write a parser for some other language, and you can invent some data structure to parse them into, but you will have been the one who invented that data structure. There will be nothing you can do on it except the things you provide ways to do. LC: That's not true. You can do that in Perl for example. R: Well, with Perl what is their format? They're strings. LC: Yeah, you can create strings which are programmed. R: Yes, with string-based interpreters you can represent programs as strings, and you can interpret them as strings, but you can't parse their syntax very easily as strings. In LISP, programs are represented as data in a way that expresses their structure, and allows you to easily do things to the programs that are based on understanding them. LC: Right, but you have to count the strings. R: No, you don't have to count strings. Strings are only in a textual representation. When it's data, you have lists that are nested in exactly the same way that the programs are. LC: This data structure versus pure list argument is one which the XEMACS people often make. R: They've apparently been indoctrinated by some rather rigid kind of object oriented design philosophy, and they feel they should make as many layers as possible in the program, and at each layer make a whole bunch of primitives to do everything you could possibly want to do. This is a recipe for making a program very big and hairy. Sometimes it's a good thing to do. When the thing has enough hair anyway, then it's sometimes good to make such a data structure. In the 1980s, there were people trying to run it in terms where you could only get an address space of 1 meg. Nowadays, that's an irrelevant design goal, and EMACS is much bigger than it was and that's okay. If it were just technical issues separating us and the EX people, I would be willing to make compromises on those things, but unfortunately it's not just technical issues. LC: How much of the current development are you still doing? R: I'm doing a substantial part of it, but not most of it anymore. I found a very good person who I think is about to be hired as an EMACS retainer, who just in the past year and a half rewrote the read/write completely to support variable response and images in the documents, and all sorts of other nice things which seem to work. You'll be able to put postscript into your document and have it display and all sorts of other neat things. We're headed towards word processor. LC: Any release dates? R: No. It will be done sooner if you help. LC: So what are you doing more of now? R: I have been compelled to involuntarily promote myself into management. LC: Which means no more coding? R: Not much coding; sad to say. It's much less fun, but it has to be done. LC: Also, you seem to be doing a lot of going out and dealing with issues such as these. R: Exactly. It's the leadership of the movement that I'm doing. Sometimes it involves managing people within new projects, sometimes it involves recruiting, negotiating with other projects, or persuading people to change their licenses. For instance, I worked for two years to persuade Berkeley to change its license to get rid of the obnoxious advertising clause. It took a long time and now it's done, but now we have lots of other people to persuade. LC: The BSD people seem to use a new code that they wrote. R: Exactly. I persuaded them a year and a half or more before I persuaded Berkeley. They took to the idea very quickly, so they don't put that into their code, but now they can remove it from the Berkeley code too. LC: Getting back to EMACS, I've heard that there are some rather peculiar methods by which it's compiled. R: Well, it has to dump itself out. The reason is to avoid taking the time to load up the standard LISP code every time you start it, so it actually unexecs itself. LC: In other words, you compile the base LISP interpreter, then you load up the LISP codes. R: Exactly. LC: Do you share libraries at all? R: No. Well, it may if you build it on a system where LISP libraries are being shared. In that case it's using shared libraries, but other than that, no. The C shared library mechanism is not designed to be used to link any LISP codes. LC: Is that how LISP programs are normally compiled? To say it core dumps itself sounds kind of frightening. R: No. LISP is interpreted. This is a different issue. This is the issue of: "How can I go out and make something start running quickly?" So much of EMACS's interpreted LISP code is the idea that, rather than starting with something small, having it bootstrap itself, and then start running interpreted LISP, you actually see something pop up on the display. There are about 30 files of LISP codes that are standardly included in EMACS. If EMACS had to load them each time, it would take probably a minute or so to start up. That would be inconvenient. LC: It's basically just a snapshot? Okay, it makes an executable file that represents the state of what is in memory at that time. R: Exactly, and that way it starts up like that and all of the loading and preloading... Well, it still takes much longer to start up than we wish, but it's much faster than it would be if it didn't do this. In the old days, it used to take 10 minutes to do that pre-loading. That was really a pain. LC: What inspired you to write EMACS? R: It sort of happened almost by accident. Let me give you the whole story. In the early 1970s, what we used for editing was TECO. Except, our version of TECO had a nice display screen feature where at the end of each TECO command string... because the way you used TECO was, you typed a command string which was a long or short sequence of commands, and at the end you would type escape/escape, and that executed all of these commands. In most versions of TECO you never saw what was in your text unless you used the command to type it out. But we had some display consoles, so we put in an automatic redisplay thing where, at the end of the command string, it would display the current area of the buffer on the screen automatically. It would keep track of what was on the screen already, and it would not redisplay the things that were changed. So that made redisplay faster. "Guy Steele had the idea of collecting the best ideas of the various TECO-based editors, and synthesizing them into one editor. We got together to implement it. After the first night, he dropped out, so I did most of the work. This became EMACS." --Richard Stallman Anyway, somebody else decided to implement a real time editing feature where you would type single character commands and they would update the screen immediately. He decided to do this with its own completely separate redisplay mechanism though, which turned out to be utterly unusable and painfully inefficient. It didn't work and nobody used it, so I decided to reimplement that completely and make it display compatibly with the usual redisplay mechanism. So, you'd go into the real time editing mode and you wouldn't see any of your text on the screen change, but then as you typed characters which changed the text, you would see the redisplay happen immediately. I optimized this and people actually started to use it. At first there were only a very limited set of things you could do to your text in this real time editing mode, so you had to edit it to do anything else like delete or save a file. So, somebody said to me, "How about giving us a couple of characters in the real time editing mode that we can redefine and make them run TECO macros?" A TECO macro was just a command string that you had written in advance to serve as a subroutine that you could call up when you wanted to. So I looked at the idea, and I saw it would be just as easy to let you redefine any and all of the characters. LC: Right. R: So I did that, and other people really went to town redefining these realtime editing characters, until eventually just a very few of them were left with their standard definitions. People had written several different packages, essentially editors written in TECO. So TECO had changed from being the editor, to a system for writing editors. Then Guy Steele had the idea of looking at these various TECO- based editors that people had written, collecting the best ideas of them all, and synthesizing them into one TECO-based editor that would end all TECO-based editors. He did a lot of work designing a new command set that would be clean and symmetrical, and then we got together to implement it. Then after the first night it happened, he dropped out, so I did most of the work. This became EMACS, and it basically replaced the other TECO-based editors. When it caught on, other people wrote implementations of the same basic idea, but not using TECO typically. Greg Greenberg, I believe, was the first one to use LISP as the language to implement the editor in. Then, people working for a system I can't recall, tried the approach of writing their own LISP interpreter and implementing most of the editor in that, and it worked well. So I used that for doing my second implementation of EMACS. Then, to gain portability, I wrote the LISP interpreter, the parts of the editor that had to run really fast, and some editing primitives, all in C. LC: Like which ones? R: Well, like insert some text in the buffer, delete some text in the buffer, communication with subprocesses, and so forth. LC: Wasn't the LISP interpreter written using lex and yacc? R: No, absolutely not. There's no reason to use lex and yacc to write a LISP interpreter. The syntax is so simple you don't need it. You'd just be making things harder. LC: I understand that you had a version on your LISP machine too. R: Yeah, there was an EMACS-like editor written in LISP machine LISP. LC: Did you work on the development of that? R: I did some, but not very much except in the later stages in the time of the war with Symbolix. There were some neat features I added, like the selective undo feature where you could select a region and undo the last change in this region. LC: Oh, that's cool. R: Now the new EMACS has that feature too. LC: What's the key for that? R: You use it with CTRL-U as an argument that requests selective undo. Also, a trangient mark mode. When you have a region active then undo the last action. LC: So C-u and then what? R: Either C-Xu or C-_. LC: Are there any plans to include Guile bindings in EMACS? R: Well, I want to switch over to replace EMACS LISP with Guile. LC: Oh, that's interesting. R: Because Guile, which is the new project scheme interpreter, is our standard for extensibility. It's a library. It's designed that you build it into your program, and then you make the lower level parts of your program into added scheme packages. Oh, here's a new feature you can see. You can see here that one of the words in this buffer is highlighted. EMACS 21 supports faces on TTY's. LC: Cool. R: It has lots of other neat features too. LC: So you're running EMACS 21 here? R: Well the development sources are not finished. We're still putting new features into it. LC: It's been a rumor that TECO had such a first impact. R: It was designed to be something you edit with, not designed to be a programming language. LC: Right. R: It was really lousy as a programming language. So the lesson of EMACS was, pick a good programming language to write your editor in, and your sensibility language really ought to be designed to be a good programming language. You shouldn't think you should throw away what you know about programming language design. Well, obviously the best programming is LISP. LC: Any real words can be considered a TECO macro? R: Yeah, just about anything. LC: So you can figure out what your names did? R: I never did that. We didn't have that game. However, I do remember that there was an editor, not TECO, in which the command EDIT {carriage return} would wipe out the text that you were editing because it means "everything delete, insert T." Now if you only did everything DELETE {carriage return} you could undo the change. There was just a one level undo buffer. LC: But not with a standard text editor. R: Not on that system. I never edited on a UNIX machine until I had EMACS to edit with. I was at MIT, and there were other things that I could edit with. I could save the files over the net, so I did my editing on a LISP machine. LC: Every time, I've heard people say that the reason they're still working on the HURD is because it was a good design and it's almost done. R: Yes. Unfortunately, progress right now is very slow. We don't have anybody working on it full time, and I wish we did. LC: What are some of the major big wins? R: Well, the big win is that it's a collection of individual servers that communicate with each other, and each user can replace the ones he or she doesn't like. LC: Such as the scheduling, or what? R: Well, the scheduling is actually done inside the micro kernel, but you can write your own memory managers, you can write your own file systems, and you can write your own terminal driver. So, you can replace your own terminal driver. You can't replace somebody else's, and as an ordinary user you can set up additional file systems that you've written, different file names, and then people can open them. LC: What advantages would this have over other micro kernels? R: I don't know very much about a lot of micro kernels, but I know that the OSF multiservers were designed specifically to mimic the features of UNIX. That would trap the system call handler, which would send a message to a server, and the server would cooperate to get the job done. As far as the user program was concerned, it would have only the features of UNIX. The HURD was designed to completely expose to the user program the various servers. So something that would be a system call in Unix would just be a function in the library. It would send various messages to get the job done, and you could send messages to those same servers any time you wanted. So, all of the underlying implementation was made available, and you could take advantage of whatever you wanted. In addition, the multiserver derived some benefit of modularity due to the fact that it was divided into these several servers, but you couldn't replace the servers you were using. Only the operator could make an alternate kind of server run. That would be good for debugging a new version of the servers, but it didn't give the user any additional power. LC: Can you make reference to the new Mach? R: There is a new version of Mach that we maintain, but we didn't write Mach, and we did that basically once all the work on Mach came to an end. LC: Could you expand a little bit on the PDP-10? R: The PDP-10 had several nice things. One is that it was a very symmetrical design. The instructions formed very symmetrical classes, including a number of instructions that were NOOP's. If you hit the class of instructions that were complete, there were a few things that were trivial and didn't do anything useful. In many cases, there were several different instructions that would do the same job just because trivial cases of two different classes of instructions were the same. Another very nice thing about the PDP-10, was that each word of 36 bits was big enough to hold two addresses. In effect, it was designed for LISP, you see. It was the original LISP machine. So, because it was a word addressed machine, you could address a megabyte using just 18 bits, and this megabyte consisted of 256K of 36 bit words, each capable of holding two pointers to other words. LC: Right. R: Another nice thing about the PDP-10 was, if you looked at a word, you could pretty much tell from its contents what kind of data it contained, whether it contained text, or instruction, or a pair of addresses, or just one address, or just some number. Typical values were different enough that you could generally tell, and this is a big help for debugging. LC: Other than the PDP-10, what would be your favorite architecture? R: As you point out, the PDP-10 was great for its day, but eventually its address base just became too small. There was no way to extend it cleanly to a larger address base, so it really was obsolete. Nowadays, I basically don't pay attention. It doesn't matter so much anymore, and now that you write in something portable rather than assembler language, you have no reason to prefer one architecture to another. Back when everybody was writing in assembler language, it really was much more of a joy to program for the PDP-10. LC: Any final thoughts? R: I'm not very good at making up final thoughts. LC: Anything? R: If you're trying to debug a program, get into the symbolic debugger as soon as possible. Assuming that you've got a reproducible test case, don't bother wasting any time looking at the cases that don't fail. Just use the debugger to find out what happens in a case that does fail. Use breakpoints, and then stepping, to localize the problem until you see where it's happening. Other approaches that might seem like shortcuts usually end up taking longer. This one is sure and steady, and it will generally find you the problem faster than any other method. But when there is no reproducible test case, then that's a different kind of fish, and you may have to put debugging buffers and save information into your program, so you can get enough information to figure out what happened. LC: There was also a program change with the debugger. [Heisenbug] R: Do you know about the bug that depends upon the phase of the moon? LC: I've heard about this. R: We always liked to talk about the bugs that depended on the phase of the moon. So, when Guy Steele wrote the Rabbit compiler, which is a scheme compiler, he made it print out a comment at the beginning which showed the time it was compiled and so on, but it also put in the phase of the moon. So, you could always look. If you had a bug that depended on the phase of the moon, you could look at the thing and see at what phase of the moon it was compiled, and that might help you figure out what went wrong. Eventually, he got a bug report about a certain program that had been compiled once, and worked, and when it was compiled at another time it didn't work. So, he looked and he discovered that when the initial comments were printed out, the LISP feature that would automatically put in a line break if a line got too long was activated on one occasion, because the phase of the moon took too many characters to print out. So, it triggered that feature, and the last part of the phase of the moon was on another line, and therefore it wasn't marked by comments. So it was just sitting there in a file, whereas at another time the phase of the moon didn't take up so many characters, and the whole thing was properly commented. So, this was a bug that actually depended on the phase of the moon. You can take that as a final thought. # [Dec 13, 1999] Linux Today Richard Stallman -- Boycott Amazon! # Amazon has obtained a US patent (5,960,411) on an important and obvious idea for E-commerce: the idea that your command in a web browser to buy a certain item can carry along information about your identity. (This works by sending back a "cookie", a kind of ID code that your browser received previously from the same server.) Amazon has sued to block the use of this simple idea, showing that they truly intend to monopolize it. This is an attack against the World Wide Web and against E-commerce in general. The idea in question is that a company can give you something which you can subsequently show them to identify yourself for credit. This is nothing new: a physical credit card does the same job, after all. But the US Patent Office issues patents on obvious and well-known ideas every day. Sometimes the result is a disaster. Today Amazon is suing one large company. If this were just a dispute between two companies, it would not be an important public issue. But the patent gives Amazon the power over anyone who runs a web site in the US (and any other countries that give them similar patents)--power to control all use of this technique. Although only one company is being sued today, the issue affects the whole Internet. Amazon is not alone at fault in what is happening. The US Patent Office is to blame for having very low standards, and US courts are to blame for endorsing them. And US patent law is to blame for authorizing patents on computational techniques and patterns of communication--a policy that is harmful in general. (See lpf.ai.mit.edu for more information about this issue.) Foolish government policies gave Amazon the opportunity--but an opportunity is not an excuse. Amazon made the choice to obtain this patent, and the choice to use it in court for aggression. The ultimate moral responsibility for Amazon's actions lies with Amazon's executives. We can hope that the court will find this patent is legally invalid, Whether they do so will depend on detailed facts and obscure technicalities. The patent uses piles of semirelevent detail to make this "invention" look like something subtle. But we do not have to wait passively for the court to decide the freedom of E-commerce. There is something we can do right now: we can refuse to do business with Amazon. Please do not buy anything from Amazon until they promise to stop using this patent to threaten or restrict other web sites. If you are the author of a book sold by Amazon, you can provide powerful help to this campaign by putting this text into the "author comment" about your book, on Amazon's web site. Please send mail to amazon(a)gnu.org when you do this, and please tell us what happens afterward. # [Aug 17, 1999] LinuxWorld Today An interview with Richard Stallman by Joe Barr # ....Richard's Rasputin-like appearance, his long dark hair and beard, as well as his history of exposing reporters as bumbling idiots, had me on edge. But his voice and features, his eyes in particular, are remarkably warm and friendly. His message -- that software should be free (as in freedom, not as in price) -- has remained so resolute over the years that many, myself included, assumed the messenger would be just as hard and unyielding. I was wrong. LWT: As I was preparing for this interview, there was a certain amount of fear as I worried about things like offending you by saying "Linux" instead of "GNU/Linux." RS: It's not so much that I would be offended, and especially if it was a mistake. I'm mainly concerned, not with what you say to me, because after all I know the situation. What matters is what you say to other people as to whether you are setting them straight about the history of the system or spreading the usual confusion. That's what really matters. LWT: I read an interview that you did with Byte Magazine in 1986, and I was struck by two things. First, if I had listened in to that interview in 1986, I would have thought you were a madman to talk about the possibility of a system that would allow people to be productive with their computers based on all free software. RS: You see, I had an advantage. I knew it was possible. I was doing it, along with a bunch of other people back at MIT in the 1970s. We had a time-sharing system that had been developed by the hackers at the AI Lab. That was their job, developing the operating system. I joined that community rather late. It started in the '60s and I joined it in 1971. The system already existed and ran, and I added to it. So I knew it was possible. I didn't have to speculate whether we could succeed in developing another one. Whether we could get together enough people, that I couldn't be sure of. But that it was possible in principle, I didn't have to guess. LWT: I was also struck by the fact that in 1986 you were saying exactly the same things that you are saying today. RS: So either you can say that I am steadfast, or that I don't know how to learn anything. LWT: I think the results speak for themselves. But I think that it is remarkable that you had a vision, a consistent vision, and it's a big part of world today. It's a powerful force in the world. What's lacking in the GNU system today? What's still to come? RS: Well, we don't have a really good, free Web browser, and there are a number of things like audio compression and video compression, which we don't have and we might be unable to have in the US because of patents. We are still working on a free replacement for ssh. People are working still on the free replacements for Microsoft Office. There are some free word processors. Whether they are good enough, I don't know. I don't think there is any free desktop-publishing software yet, but there needs to be. LWT: The things you are mentioning are almost all applications. RS: Well, the core of the system we've got, so that's not where things are missing. After all, the issues of freedom apply the same to application programs as they do to the operating system. I decided we should aim for the operating system first because you need an operating system first. You can't do anything without an operating system. Whereas these individual applications, any given application, maybe many people don't need it. They can do their work without it. But now that we've got an operating system, yes, it's time for free applications. So that freedom can spread across the whole spectrum of software and all computer users can have freedom fully. LWT: Is there a new operating system nearing life? RS: I'm sorry, I don't understand that. LWT: Like GNU/Hurd. RS: The Hurd is not an operating system, it's a kernel. The GNU operating system is working, but using Linux as the kernel. It works. It is a reliable, solid kernel. It's as good as any Unix kernel ever was, and as a result the GNU system with Linux as the kernel is a reliable, solid system. Right now, work on the GNU Hurd is very slow, unfortunately. I wish there were somebody smart working full-time on it, but there isn't. The result is that we have it running but we haven't written the things to take advantage of the advanced architecture to actually give the user benefits from it. And until we find somebody to do that, it's not going to be really of direct, practical use to people. So I hope someone arrives, but whether GNU Hurd succeeds or not, the GNU system as a whole has succeeded. LWT: You've written a number of programs. Emacs, gcc, gdb. I'm forgetting something major here, but with the software that you've contributed, with the GNU manifesto, with the Free Software Foundation, what do you think is the most important thing that you've done for free software? RS: Well, you're looking at all the various parts of something that's really important as a whole. The GNU Manifesto laid out the plan to build a community in which people could have freedom by using exclusively free software. Now to do this, we needed an operating system that was wholly free software. That's GNU. So the various programs I wrote are important because they helped us get there. They are pieces of the GNU system. But what is really important is the whole GNU system. That's, after all, why Linux is important. Because it's used as a piece in the GNU system, in the version of GNU that people actually use. So, none of these individual pieces would actually matter all that much if we didn't have the whole system. Of course, there are many pieces in the system, and some of them were written by others for completely different purposes. But whenever I wrote a piece, I was doing that to get to that ultimate goal. And so I don't think it's useful to look at individual pieces. If you want to judge their importance, the way to judge them is to ask "how much did they help us reach the overall goal" rather than "how useful is this piece of software in isolation." LWT: What do you take the most personal satisfaction from? Is the GNU Manifesto more important than the software? RS: I would say that determinedly standing for freedom and insisting that we should aim for a completely free system and not settling for anything less is the most important thing I've done. LWT: I've heard you described as a socialist, or a communist. Do politics enter into the Free Software Foundation? RS: Politics do, but I'm not a socialist or a communist. LWT: How would you describe yourself? RS: Well, I guess I am a sort of combination between a liberal and a leftist anarchist. I like to see people working together, voluntarily, to solve the world's problems. But, if we can't do that, I think we should get the government involved to solve them. The idea of democracy is that it enables the citizens in general to put a check on the power of the richest, and these days in America we are failing to use that tool, which of course, leads to a harsh life for most people. LWT: Especially the contrast between the world's wealthiest man, Bill Gates, who has derived his wealth entirely from proprietary software, where people have no choice at all in the selection on the one hand.. RS: Well, I should point out that people who are determined enough do have a choice. I was in the same position as lots of people said they were in, and I decided I wasn't going to use that. When I started the GNU project, Microsoft was not particularly important or particularly large, but what you can accurately say is that the only other choices were difficult ones. Most people look at those difficult choices and say that's too hard for me. Because they are not absolutely determined to get freedom. The most important thing about the GNU project is that it is giving people an alternative to proprietary software that is easier, and because it is easier, more people feel they can choose it. So that's the way it spreads freedom to people, by giving them a less heroic way they can get freedom. Anyway, the people who call me a communist are engaging in Red- baiting. It's a standard thing. If anybody criticizes something about what business is doing, at the present, they get called a communist. When people said, "Don't pour poison in the river," they were called communists. But they didn't want to abolish business. They wanted to abolish pouring poison into the river. The free software movement is a lot like that. It's a lot like the environmental movement because the goal is not to abolish business, the goal is to end a certain kind of pollution. But in this case, it's not pollution of the air or the water, it's pollution of our social relationships. When somebody says, here is this nice thing that you will enjoy using but if you share it with your neighbor we'll call you a pirate and put you in jail, they are polluting society's most important resource, which is goodwill, the willingness to cooperate with other people. LWT: If I understand what you have said and written previously, that was the impetus for you. RS: Yes, that is the reason why I decided to dedicate my efforts to free software. To change an ugly system. And I don't mean a computer system. I mean a social system. LWT: I heard you last night, at the award ceremony, saying that you had lived for a time in your office at MIT. Do you still live at MIT? RS: No, they won't let me. I would like to, it's very convenient. LWT: How do you pay your bills? What revenues do you have? RS: These days I get paid for speaking. I've made a living in various ways. At one point, for most of a year after GNU Emacs was first developed, I was selling copies of GNU Emacs. And then for several years I was doing free-software support. I was accepting commissions to add new features to the C compiler, teaching classes about Emacs and about how to program gcc. I guess I would have continued doing that except I got a big prize and didn't have to do it anymore. LWT: So you have your basic needs taken care of. RS: Well, they are now. But when I started the GNU project I couldn't be assured of that. I wasn't rich and I didn't know how I was going to make a living. But fortunately, I live cheaply. I've resisted acquiring the expensive habits that some other people pick up as soon as they get enough money to. You know, like houses and cars and children and boats and planes. Art collecting. People tend to think, "I have money now, let me look for some frivolous thing to blow it on." But my idea was, "I'm going to save this so that in the future I won't have any worries about it." Living cheaply helps doing that. It also enabled me to decide what I was going to do with my life instead of having money decide for me. LWT: Are you still writing software? RS: Not an awful lot. I've been forced to promote myself into management. LWT: So you're providing the leadership for FSF. RS: Well, I try to. I still find time to fix bugs in Emacs and to add new features. But it's not as much time as I wish. LWT: Do you spend most of your time on the speaking circuit? Doing shows like this? RS: I spend most of my time traveling. That's partly because when I go someplace, I try to enjoy it. So I don't just go there and go out again as soon as possible. Usually I stay there for a while. That's if it's a place I enjoy going. If it's a place that I don't particularly want to go, then I would only go there if I thought it was really important. LWT: It's a big thrill for me to meet you. RS: So spread the word, that this is about freedom. LWT: That is your message. RS: Urge people to endorse the free software philosophy instead of the open source philosophy. LWT: And the distinction being? RS: The distinction is the open source philosophy is about how to make reliable, powerful software. They emphasize the practical values. And they are not wrong, but they are not everything. I think that freedom is more important than powerful, reliable software. All else being equal, I want powerful, more reliable software. But if I have to choose between a more powerful program or my freedom, I would choose my freedom. I will use free software even if it is less powerful, or less reliable, because freedom is the most important thing, and that is what the Free Software movement is about. How we get freedom. We want to make software powerful and reliable, because that way more people will use it and have freedom. LWT: Why doesn't the Free Software Foundation approach Netscape, AOL, whoever, and say "Give us Mozilla, and we'll complete the project." RS: Well, I never thought of it. I don't know if we can do technically a better job than they are doing, maybe we could. I see no reason to think that Netscape wants to give it up. Do they want to? I mean, I haven't heard. I suspect that they want to finish it. LWT: I'm sure they do, but there are a lot of people unhappy with the licensing, perhaps. RS: I'm unhappy with the licensing of Netscape. It's a free software license, but it has certain flaws. I've asked them to change it; whether they will, well, that's up to them. LWT: But they are not getting buy-in from the developer community. RS: That's an interesting phenomenon. I don't know why that is. I don't remember exactly what [Mozilla's lead developer] Jamie Zawinski said the reason was. Do you remember? LWT: Yes. He gave several reasons. Number one, it is very, very complex software. Expectations were too high to deliver too much too soon. It is not a trivial task. Number two, he said that Netscape was doing all the development, or 90 percent of the development. RS: What was his reason for why other people didn't join in? Does he have an idea of why that is? He wouldn't necessarily know. None of us would necessarily know. But he would have maybe been paying attention to figure out why people didn't join in. LWT: I don't believe he said why. RS: I don't know why. I think that maybe the fact that their license was not an unbiased license, it gave Netscape special privilege with other people's code. I can imagine that was part of the reason. LWT: Whatever the reasons are, it hasn't received social acceptance. RS: It's also conceivable that Netscape is competing with itself. People who are not firmly committed to free software and to freedom think it is okay to use Netscape. That is, not Mozilla, but the Netscape browser that is still available as binaries only. And if they are happy using that, then they see no reason to worry about or care about Mozilla. LWT: What browser do you use? RS: I use Lynx. I'm not terribly interested in pictures anyway. I consider eye-candy distracting and annoying in Web pages. It makes them hard to read and the ads are likely to be graphical, and I don't want to see the ads. LWT: I'm struck by the fact that two of the ways you've made a living since beginning this walk are very similar to what Michael Tiemann, co- founder of Cygnus Solutions, has done, except on an individual basis instead of on a corporate basis. RS: Absolutely. Indeed. LWT: Michael Tiemann told me that when he read the GNU Manifesto, he saw a business plan where others saw what you were saying. RS: Well, actually, he may have seen one aspect of what was there. Because I talked in the GNU Manifesto about ways that there could be free software businesses. But my main concern was not about business, it was about freedom. Yes, I've done business. I've personally done free software business. I think that free software business is a good thing. But although we do business to make a living and live, there are things that are above and beyond that. Such as making the world a better place. So I was aiming for something beyond making a living. Yes, I do business to make a living, and I'm not ashamed of that. But if that's all I did, it wouldn't be so important. LWT: The concepts of freedom, as you have given them, as they apply to software -- to what other forms of expression should they apply? RS: Some of the issues transfer over to things to things like books and music that you may have on your computer, and some of them don't. For some of them it is useful to make modifications of them, and for some of them it's not. LWT: Because of their utility? RS: Because of how people use them and what they are made of. Making changes in novels is not as important as it is in software. Programs are made to be run, whereas novels are made to be appreciated. So, it is essential that people have the freedom to make changes to software and publish the modified versions. I don't think it is essential to have that freedom for novels. But on the other hand, the freedom to make a copy for your friends is essential for any kind of thing that might be published and you might have on your computer. LWT: How can people get involved with the Free Software Foundation? RS: Take a look at www.gnu.org. We've got a number of suggestions for how people can help by writing code or helping to administer our systems if you're a good system admin wanting to work, or by writing documentation. We really need documentation. We need good documentation writers more than we need good programmers. So if you've got the skill to write good documentation, that's what you should do. When people show up to program, offering to write software, and I find out they can write documentation, I beg them to write documentation instead. Because good documentation is essential and for a free system we need free documentation. Documentation that we can distribute as part of the system. There are many manuals that are published about free software, but most of them are not free. Of course, I'm always talking about freedom, not price. The problem is that the text of these manuals is restricted. You are not allowed to copy them and redistribute them and publish modified versions of them. LWT: Have you heard about the book that IDG Books, LinuxWorld, Nicholas Petreley, and I are going to do? The OpenBook? RS: No, but I may be interested in it. LWT: It will be freely redistributable and modifiable. RS: Wow. Well if that's the case, then that sounds exactly like what we need more of. Be sure and tell me about it. LWT: I certainly will. It will be written by the community, Nicholas and I will only serve as editors. RS: What will it be about? LWT: It will be about "Essential Linux." RS: I hope you'll call it GNU/Linux. |