Mercurial > emacs
diff etc/INTERVIEW @ 26119:6b5aacec5ace
*** empty log message ***
| author | Dave Love <fx@gnu.org> |
|---|---|
| date | Wed, 20 Oct 1999 10:41:43 +0000 |
| parents | |
| children | c53a9463c31a |
line wrap: on
line diff
--- /dev/null Thu Jan 01 00:00:00 1970 +0000 +++ b/etc/INTERVIEW Wed Oct 20 10:41:43 1999 +0000 @@ -0,0 +1,443 @@ + + GNU'S NOT UNIX + + Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards + + Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain + UNIX-compatible software system + with BYTE editors + (July 1986) + +Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and +distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice +appear on all copies. + +Richard Stallman has undertaken probably the most ambitious free software +development project to date, the GNU system. In his GNU Manifesto, +published in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's Journal, Stallman described +GNU as a "complete Unix-compatible software system which I am writing so +that I can give it away free to everyone who can use it... Once GNU is +written, everyone will be able to obtain good system software free, just +like air." (GNU is an acronym for GNU's Not UNIX; the "G" is pronounced.) + + Stallman is widely known as the author of EMACS, a powerful text editor +that he developed at the MIT Artificial Intelligence Laboratory. It is no +coincidence that the first piece of software produced as part of the GNU +project was a new implementation of EMACS. GNU EMACS has already achieved a +reputation as one of the best implementations of EMACS currently available +at any price. + +BYTE: We read your GNU Manifesto in the March 1985 issue of Dr. Dobb's. +What has happened since? Was that really the beginning, and how have you +progressed since then? + +Stallman: The publication in Dr. Dobb's wasn't the beginning of the +project. I wrote the GNU Manifesto when I was getting ready to start the +project, as a proposal to ask computer manufacturers for funding. They +didn't want to get involved, and I decided that rather than spend my time +trying to pursue funds, I ought to spend it writing code. The manifesto was +published about a year and a half after I had written it, when I had barely +begun distributing the GNU EMACS. Since that time, in addition to making +GNU EMACS more complete and making it run on many more computers, I have +nearly finished the optimizing C compiler and all the other software that +is needed for running C programs. This includes a source-level debugger +that has many features that the other source-level debuggers on UNIX don't +have. For example, it has convenience variables within the debugger so you +can save values, and it also has a history of all the values that you have +printed out, making it tremendously easier to chase around list structures. + +BYTE: You have finished an editor that is now widely distributed and you +are about to finish the compiler. + +Stallman: I expect that it will be finished this October. + +BYTE: What about the kernel? + +Stallman: I'm currently planning to start with the kernel that was written +at MIT and was released to the public recently with the idea that I would +use it. This kernel is called TRIX; it's based on remote procedure call. I +still need to add compatibility for a lot of the features of UNIX which it +doesn't have currently. I haven't started to work on that yet. I'm +finishing the compiler before I go to work on the kernel. I am also going +to have to rewrite the file system. I intend to make it failsafe just by +having it write blocks in the proper order so that the disk structure is +always consistent. Then I want to add version numbers. I have a complicated +scheme to reconcile version numbers with the way people usually use UNIX. +You have to be able to specify filenames without version numbers, but you +also have to be able to specify them with explicit version numbers, and +these both need to work with ordinary UNIX programs that have not been +modified in any way to deal with the existence of this feature. I think I +have a scheme for doing this, and only trying it will show me whether it +really does the job. + +BYTE: Do you have a brief description you can give us as to how GNU as a +system will be superior to other systems? We know that one of your goals is +to produce something that is compatible with UNIX. But at least in the area +of file systems you have already said that you are going to go beyond UNIX +and produce something that is better. + +Stallman: The C compiler will produce better code and run faster. The +debugger is better. With each piece I may or may not find a way to improve +it. But there is no one answer to this question. To some extent I am +getting the benefit of reimplementation, which makes many systems much +better. To some extent it's because I have been in the field a long time +and worked on many other systems. I therefore have many ideas to bring to +bear. One way in which it will be better is that practically everything in +the system will work on files of any size, on lines of any size, with any +characters appearing in them. The UNIX system is very bad in that regard. +It's not anything new as a principle of software engineering that you +shouldn't have arbitrary limits. But it just was the standard practice in +writing UNIX to put those in all the time, possibly just because they were +writing it for a very small computer. The only limit in the GNU system is +when your program runs out of memory because it tried to work on too much +data and there is no place to keep it all. + +BYTE: And that isn't likely to be hit if you've got virtual memory. You may +just take forever to come up with the solution. + +Stallman: Actually these limits tend to hit in a time long before you take +forever to come up with the solution. + +BYTE: Can you say something about what types of machines and environments +GNU EMACS in particular has been made to run under? It's now running on +VAXes; has it migrated in any form to personal computers? + +Stallman: I'm not sure what you mean by personal computers. For example, is +a Sun a personal computer? GNU EMACS requires at least a megabyte of +available memory and preferably more. It is normally used on machines that +have virtual memory. Except for various technical problems in a few C +compilers, almost any machine with virtual memory and running a fairly +recent version of UNIX will run GNU EMACS, and most of them currently do. + +BYTE: Has anyone tried to port it to Ataris or Macintoshes? + +Stallman: The Atari 1040ST still doesn't have quite enough memory. The next +Atari machine, I expect, will run it. I also think that future Ataris will +have some forms of memory mapping. Of course, I am not designing the +software to run on the kinds of computers that are prevalent today. I knew +when I started this project it was going to take a few years. I therefore +decided that I didn't want to make a worse system by taking on the +additional challenge of making it run in the currently constrained +environment. So instead I decided I'm going to write it in the way that +seems the most natural and best. I am confident that in a couple of years +machines of sufficient size will be prevalent. In fact, increases in memory +size are happening so fast it surprises me how slow most of the people are +to put in virtual memory; I think it is totally essential. + +BYTE: I think people don't really view it as being necessary for +single-user machines. + +Stallman: They don't understand that single user doesn't mean single +program. Certainly for any UNIX-like system it's important to be able to +run lots of different processes at the same time even if there is only one +of you. You could run GNU EMACS on a nonvirtual-memory machine with enough +memory, but you couldn't run the rest of the GNU system very well or a UNIX +system very well. + +BYTE: How much of LISP is present in GNU EMACS? It occurred to me that it +may be useful to use that as a tool for learning LISP. + +Stallman: You can certainly do that. GNU EMACS contains a complete, +although not very powerful, LISP system. It's powerful enough for writing +editor commands. It's not comparable with, say, a Common LISP System, +something you could really use for system programming, but it has all the +things that LISP needs to have. + +BYTE: Do you have any predictions about when you would be likely to +distribute a workable environment in which, if we put it on our machines or +workstations, we could actually get reasonable work done without using +anything other than code that you distribute? + +Stallman: It's really hard to say. That could happen in a year, but of +course it could take longer. It could also conceivably take less, but +that's not too likely anymore. I think I'll have the compiler finished in a +month or two. The only other large piece of work I really have to do is in +the kernel. I first predicted GNU would take something like two years, but +it has now been two and a half years and I'm still not finished. Part of +the reason for the delay is that I spent a lot of time working on one +compiler that turned out to be a dead end. I had to rewrite it completely. +Another reason is that I spent so much time on GNU EMACS. I originally +thought I wouldn't have to do that at all. + +BYTE: Tell us about your distribution scheme. + +Stallman: I don't put software or manuals in the public domain, and the +reason is that I want to make sure that all the users get the freedom to +share. I don't want anyone making an improved version of a program I wrote +and distributing it as proprietary. I don't want that to ever be able to +happen. I want to encourage the free improvements to these programs, and +the best way to do that is to take away any temptation for a person to make +improvements nonfree. Yes, a few of them will refrain from making +improvements, but a lot of others will make the same improvements and +they'll make them free. + +BYTE: And how do you go about guaranteeing that? + +Stallman: I do this by copyrighting the programs and putting on a notice +giving people explicit permission to copy the programs and change them but +only on the condition that they distribute under the same terms that I +used, if at all. You don't have to distribute the changes you make to any +of my programs--you can just do it for yourself, and you don't have to give +it to anyone or tell anyone. But if you do give it to someone else, you +have to do it under the same terms that I use. + +BYTE: Do you obtain any rights over the executable code derived from the C +compiler? + +Stallman: The copyright law doesn't give me copyright on output from the +compiler, so it doesn't give me a way to say anything about that, and in +fact I don't try to. I don't sympathize with people developing proprietary +products with any compiler, but it doesn't seem especially useful to try to +stop them from developing them with this compiler, so I am not going to. + +BYTE: Do your restrictions apply if people take pieces of your code to +produce other things as well? + +Stallman: Yes, if they incorporate with changes any sizable piece. If it +were two lines of code, that's nothing; copyright doesn't apply to that. +Essentially, I have chosen these conditions so that first there is a +copyright, which is what all the software hoarders use to stop everybody +from doing anything, and then I add a notice giving up part of those +rights. So the conditions talk only about the things that copyright applies +to. I don't believe that the reason you should obey these conditions is +because of the law. The reason you should obey is because an upright person +when he distributes software encourages other people to share it further. + +BYTE: In a sense you are enticing people into this mode of thinking by +providing all of these interesting tools that they can use but only if they +buy into your philosophy. + +Stallman: Yes. You could also see it as using the legal system that +software hoarders have set up against them. I'm using it to protect the +public from them. + +BYTE: Given that manufacturers haven't wanted to fund the project, who do +you think will use the GNU system when it is done? + +Stallman: I have no idea, but it is not an important question. My purpose +is to make it possible for people to reject the chains that come with +proprietary software. I know that there are people who want to do that. +Now, there may be others who don't care, but they are not my concern. I +feel a bit sad for them and for the people that they influence. Right now a +person who perceives the unpleasantness of the terms of proprietary +software feels that he is stuck and has no alternative except not to use a +computer. Well, I am going to give him a comfortable alternative. + Other people may use the GNU system simply because it is technically +superior. For example, my C compiler is producing about as good a code as I +have seen from any C compiler. And GNU EMACS is generally regarded as being +far superior to the commercial competition. And GNU EMACS was not funded by +anyone either, but everyone is using it. I therefore think that many people +will use the rest of the GNU system because of its technical advantages. +But I would be doing a GNU system even if I didn't know how to make it +technically better because I want it to be socially better. The GNU project +is really a social project. It uses technical means to make a change in +society. + +BYTE: Then it is fairly important to you that people adopt GNU. It is not +just an academic exercise to produce this software to give it away to +people. You hope it will change the way the software industry operates. + +Stallman: Yes. Some people say no one will ever use it because it doesn't +have some attractive corporate logo on it, and other people say that they +think it is tremendously important and everyone's going to want to use it. +I have no way of knowing what is really going to happen. I don't know any +other way to try to change the ugliness of the field that I find myself in, +so this is what I have to do. + +BYTE: Can you address the implications? You obviously feel that this is an +important political and social statement. + +Stallman: It is a change. I'm trying to change the way people approach +knowledge and information in general. I think that to try to own knowledge, +to try to control whether people are allowed to use it, or to try to stop +other people from sharing it, is sabotage. It is an activity that benefits +the person that does it at the cost of impoverishing all of society. One +person gains one dollar by destroying two dollars' worth of wealth. I think +a person with a conscience wouldn't do that sort of thing except perhaps if +he would otherwise die. And of course the people who do this are fairly +rich; I can only conclude that they are unscrupulous. I would like to see +people get rewards for writing free software and for encouraging other +people to use it. I don't want to see people get rewards for writing +proprietary software because that is not really a contribution to society. +The principle of capitalism is the idea that people manage to make money by +producing things and thereby are encouraged to do what is useful, +automatically, so to speak. But that doesn't work when it comes to owning +knowledge. They are encouraged to do not really what's useful, and what +really is useful is not encouraged. I think it is important to say that +information is different from material objects like cars and loaves of +bread because people can copy it and share it on their own and, if nobody +attempts to stop them, they can change it and make it better for +themselves. That is a useful thing for people to do. This isn't true of +loaves of bread. If you have one loaf of bread and you want another, you +can't just put your loaf of bread into a bread copier. you can't make +another one except by going through all the steps that were used to make +the first one. It therefore is irrelevant whether people are permitted to +copy it--it's impossible. + Books were printed only on printing presses until recently. It was +possible to make a copy yourself by hand, but it wasn't practical because +it took so much more work than using a printing press. And it produced +something so much less attractive that, for all intents and purposes, you +could act as if it were impossible to make books except by mass producing +them. And therefore copyright didn't really take any freedom away from the +reading public. There wasn't anything that a book purchaser could do that +was forbidden by copyright. + But this isn't true for computer programs. It's also not true for tape +cassettes. It's partly false now for books, but it is still true that for +most books it is more expensive and certainly a lot more work to Xerox them +than to buy a copy, and the result is still less attractive. Right now we +are in a period where the situation that made copyright harmless and +acceptable is changing to a situation where copyright will become +destructive and intolerable. So the people who are slandered as "pirates" +are in fact the people who are trying to do something useful that they have +been forbidden to do. The copyright laws are entirely designed to help +people take complete control over the use of some information for their own +good. But they aren't designed to help people who want to make sure that +the information is accessible to the public and stop others from depriving +the public. I think that the law should recognize a class of works that are +owned by the public, which is different from public domain in the same +sense that a public park is different from something found in a garbage +can. It's not there for anybody to take away, it's there for everyone to +use but for no one to impede. Anybody in the public who finds himself being +deprived of the derivative work of something owned by the public should be +able to sue about it. + +BYTE: But aren't pirates interested in getting copies of programs because +they want to use those programs, not because they want to use that +knowledge to produce something better? + +Stallman: I don't see that that's the important distinction. More people +using a program means that the program contributes more to society. You +have a loaf of bread that could be eaten either once or a million times. + +BYTE: Some users buy commercial software to obtain support. How does your +distribution scheme provide support? + +Stallman: I suspect that those users are misled and are not thinking +clearly. It is certainly useful to have support, but when they start +thinking about how that has something to do with selling software or with +the software being proprietary, at that point they are confusing +themselves. There is no guarantee that proprietary software will receive +good support. Simply because sellers say that they provide support, that +doesn't mean it will be any good. And they may go out of business. In fact, +people think that GNU EMACS has better support than commercial EMACSes. One +of the reasons is that I'm probably a better hacker than the people who +wrote the other EMACSes, but the other reason is that everyone has sources +and there are so many people interested in figuring out how to do things +with it that you don't have to get your support from me. Even just the free +support that consists of my fixing bugs people report to me and +incorporating that in the next release has given people a good level of +support. You can always hire somebody to solve a problem for you, and when +the software is free you have a competitive market for the support. You can +hire anybody. I distribute a service list with EMACS, a list of people's +names and phone numbers and what they charge to provide support. + +BYTE: Do you collect their bug fixes? + +Stallman: Well, they send them to me. I asked all the people who wanted to +be listed to promise that they would never ask any of their customers to +keep secret whatever they were told or any changes they were given to the +GNU software as part of that support. + +BYTE: So you can't have people competing to provide support based on their +knowing the solution to some problem that somebody else doesn't know. + +Stallman: No. They can compete based on their being clever and more likely +to find the solution to your problem, or their already understanding more +of the common problems, or knowing better how to explain to you what you +should do. These are all ways they can compete. They can try to do better, +but they cannot actively impede their competitors. + +BYTE: I suppose it's like buying a car. You're not forced to go back to the +original manufacturer for support or continued maintenance. + +Stallman: Or buying a house--what would it be like if the only person who +could ever fix problems with your house was the contractor who built it +originally? That is the kind of imposition that's involved in proprietary +software. People tell me about a problem that happens in UNIX. Because +manufacturers sell improved versions of UNIX, they tend to collect fixes +and not give them out except in binaries. The result is that the bugs don't +really get fixed. + +BYTE: They're all duplicating effort trying to solve bugs independently. + +Stallman: Yes. Here is another point that helps put the problem of +proprietary information in a social perspective. Think about the liability +insurance crisis. In order to get any compensation from society, an injured +person has to hire a lawyer and split the money with that lawyer. This is a +stupid and inefficient way of helping out people who are victims of +accidents. And consider all the time that people put into hustling to take +business away from their competition. Think of the pens that are packaged +in large cardboard packages that cost more than the pen--just to make sure +that the pen isn't stolen. Wouldn't it be better if we just put free pens +on every street corner? And think of all the toll booths that impede the +flow of traffic. It's a gigantic social phenomenon. People find ways of +getting money by impeding society. Once they can impede society, they can +be paid to leave people alone. The waste inherent in owning information +will become more and more important and will ultimately make the difference +between the utopia in which nobody really has to work for a living because +it's all done by robots and a world just like ours where everyone spends +much time replicating what the next fellow is doing. + +BYTE: Like typing in copyright notices on the software. + +Stallman: More like policing everyone to make sure that they don't have +forbidden copies of anything and duplicating all the work people have +already done because it is proprietary. + +BYTE: A cynic might wonder how you earn your living. + +Stallman: From consulting. When I do consulting, I always reserve the right +to give away what I wrote for the consulting job. Also, I could be making +my living by mailing copies of the free software that I wrote and some that +other people wrote. Lots of people send in $150 for GNU EMACS, but now this +money goes to the Free Software Foundation that I started. The foundation +doesn't pay me a salary because it would be a conflict of interest. +Instead, it hires other people to work on GNU. As long as I can go on +making a living by consulting I think that's the best way. + +BYTE: What is currently included in the official GNU distribution tape? + +Stallman: Right now the tape contains GNU EMACS (one version fits all +computers); Bison, a program that replaces YACC; MIT Scheme, which is +Professor Sussman's super-simplified dialect of LISP; and Hack, a +dungeon-exploring game similar to Rogue. + +BYTE: Does the printed manual come with the tape as well? + +Stallman: No. Printed manuals cost $15 each or copy them yourself. Copy +this interview and share it, too. + +BYTE: How can you get a copy of that? + +Stallman: Write to the Free Software Foundation, 675 Massachusetts Ave., +Cambridge, MA 02139. + +[In June 1995, this address changed to: + Free Software Foundation + 59 Temple Place - Suite 330 + Boston, MA 02111-1307, USA + Voice: +1-617-542-5942 + Fax: +1-617-542-2652 +-gnu@prep.ai.mit.edu +] + +BYTE: What are you going to do when you are done with the GNU system? + +Stallman: I'm not sure. Sometimes I think that what I'll go on to do is the +same thing in other areas of software. + +BYTE: So this is just the first of a whole series of assaults on the +software industry? + +Stallman: I hope so. But perhaps what I'll do is just live a life of ease +working a little bit of the time just to live. I don't have to live +expensively. The rest of the time I can find interesting people to hang +around with or learn to do things that I don't know how to do. + +Editorial Note: BYTE holds the right to provide this interview on BIX but +will not interfere with its distribution. + +Richard Stallman, 545 Technology Square, Room 703, Cambridge, MA 02139. +Copyright (C) 1986 Richard Stallman. Permission is granted to make and +distribute copies of this article as long as the copyright and this notice +appear on all copies.