BYTE Interview With Richard Stallman (1986) | Hacker News Reader

BYTE Interview With Richard Stallman (1986)

gnu.org

48 pointsdrcube39 comments

People forget this too:

Stallman: "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."

He refers to gcc and gdb:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Stallman

"Stallman has also developed a number of pieces of widely used software, including the original Emacs,[5] the GNU Compiler Collection,[6] the GNU Debugger,[7] and various tools in the GNU coreutils.[8]"

That's one successful hacker.

Who forgets that? This is pretty well known.

Wow. I was one year old when this was published.

Stallman's combination of sort-of-maddeningly-precise nerdspeak and revolutionary zeal has always made me cock my head and listen--if not to every word, then at least to some of his more apt analogies:

  "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."

This idea, if a bit utopian, feels like it has a very fundamental truth about the future at its core. To me. And this was 1986. I'm not sure that someone born 50+ years ago who doesn't think about this stuff as much as Stallman feels it in their gut like I do. My grandfather, who lived through the Great Depression, might reject it as utter nonsense.

That quote also reminded me of Paul Graham talking about how "files move around like smells" at his PyCon keynote this year. He was responding to a semi-panicked question about "how will we make money if we can't charge for copies of software?!":

  "If you imagined that we lived like on the moon, and everything--you know, we
  had to get like air in pipes, and paid for the air, right? People could charge
  for smells. People could charge for good smells, right? And so it would seem
  reasonable for smells to be property. But now, you walk by restaurant, and you
  smell this delicious smell, you get this like free boost--for nothing! And
  like, I think the record labels are like these people who are from the moon,
  right? And they used to be able to sell these things because the only way you
  could get them was through their channel. But now, files move around like smells.
  And it's not convenient to charge for them. Ultimately this stuff is
  pragmatic. I realize that doesn't sound very principled, but historically it
  seems to be the way things work."

That whole back and forth is transcribed at https://gist.github.com/3549855 (And see the press catch up on some of these ideas, too: http://www.fastcompany.com/1842581/why-millennials-dont-want... )

Interesting thought, I'm of that era, I began programming after graduate school in 1983, and remember the beginning of GNU well, as well as the fork that is called "open source".

I find it interesting to hear arguments that open source has more or less shown that "free software" is no longer so relevant. I agree that the FSF has been somewhat marginalized but I don't think that bodes well for the future of programming.

Ebon Moglen also writes and speaks well on many of the political and economics aspects of software as it relates to property and law. Many American indian tribes, .eg., treated land and resources as common but treated things like a teepee painting and even a brave's name as property. It's complicated :)

I was in the military and at university when this was published. In '86 I had been using computers for several years, since I had relatives (father and two uncles) that had jobs that exposed me to almost all the computing platforms of the day. The very small sub-set of geeks that I hung around with "knew" then that there was great opportunity for open source, even though there was no such term for it then. We shared all software, both the commercial and the public domain. We built computers from kits and home-etched circuit boards. Nobody cared what computer you had, having one and sharing it with like minds was the norm. When the internet and OSS came along, we were already there.

The reason copyright exists is because the person who created X (a book, a play, etc) wanted to be paid. The US Constitution describes the reason for copyright as "To promote the Progress of Science and useful Arts." The question then is, if you allow people to copy "information", then do you reduce progress, because people don't get paid for their work? The answer to that may be 'no', but it isn't as simple as comparing information to bread.

You might be interested to know of Thomas Jefferson's writings on the topic (to have "Monopolies may be allowed to persons for their own productions in literature and their own inventions in the arts for a term not exceeding ___ years but for no longer term and no other purpose." in the Bill of Rights) and Benjamin Franklin's on patents ("that as we enjoy great advantages from the inventions of others, we should be glad of an opportunity to serve others by any invention of ours, and this we should do freely and generously"). TJ was initially opposed to monopolies of any sort, but that changed over time.

I point this out to suggest that these utopian ideas you see have echos even back into the centuries.

I sometimes feel like the world is moving away from the FSF principals more then it is moving towards it. Nobody seems to be in control of their own devices, software and data anymore.

Data is stored in the cloud, applications are remotely removed from you're IPhone, you have to log in to play offline games, phones send all sorts off personal data to third parties.

This is all happening in a time where free software is easy to get and hard drives are cheap enough to store all the data you want :(.

What is even sadder is that most of the systems that are taking away from the users the control of their data and applications have been built (at least in part) thanks to free software.

AGPL is fighting that war.

The sort of technology you're talking about is in its very, very early infancy. We've no idea how the landscape is going to look 20 years from now. I don't think there's any reason to be pessimistic about the future. We have rapidly improving, free, desktop, tablet and phone operating systems and an open web.

I can't wait to see the impact that Mozillas new mobile OS they're releasing in the first quarter of next year has. It sounds like it is going to be "more free" than Android, and much easier to develop for. The Linux desktop is "not there" yet, but it is becoming more user friendly every year, and rapidly. Ubuntu is a god send.

The reason for not being optimistic is that lots of people are touting UEFI locked bootloaders as a step in the right direction (under the excuse of security) while most of the rest will look at those crippled subsidized Win8 ARM tablets and say "look! shiny!".

Sadly, "Idiocracy" is a prophetic movie...

I see idiocracy only in failure to understand, that "common people" have different priorities form you, nerds. And for them security is priority. "UEFI locked bootloaders" for them is just meaningless phrase and they couldn't care less about that. How stupid is to think, that if you are computer nerd the whole world should be to? Have you seen doctors moaning about world becoming idiocracy just because not everyone knows latin names for every part of their body?

I see idiocracy only in failure to understand, that "common people" have different priorities form you, nerds. And for them security is priority.

When your argument rests on the premise that "common people care more about security than nerds", maybe you should reconsider it.

Doctors don't create.

Locked down devices will always exist in some form. Once you accept that fact, the next best thing would be for there to be plenty of open alternatives. I'm optimistic that the number and quality of free alternatives is improving and will continue to improve.

  > Nobody seems to be in control of their own devices,
  > software and data anymore.

Because not many want this kind of control? Many just want to have stuff that they can just take and use instead of controlling every aspect of it.

Until they can't use it anymore, because the provider suddenly decided you lost the rights[1].

[1]: http://boingboing.net/2009/07/17/amazon-zaps-purchase.html

I love where he says the kernel is about a year away from being finished. :)

The interviewer mentioned public domain a couple of times, but Stallman explained how he used copyright+licenses to ensure improvements were passed on as free software. This is pre-GPL, so it's historically interesting to see the transition from public domain to GPL free software.

How Stallman changed the world:

" I decided that rather than spend my time trying to pursue funds, I ought to spend it writing code."

There were all kinds of interesting articles in BYTE. I remember finding a whole box of them when I was still in grade school - tossed out by the public library - and I spent the summer reading and memorizing them.

Somehow I missed this interview until now. Cheers, Stallman!

I've probably failed a couple tests in engineering school (took fluid mechanics 3 times) because of the time I spent reading the library's almost complete collection.

BYTE was a magazine for another time, when new didn't mean "the latest, incrementally faster, x86 architecture capable of running Windows".

Wow... I'm really gloomy today.

I hope this cheered you up. :-)

I spent summers with my dad who was an instructor at a large techincal college. The hot Texas afternoons were spent reading Byte and designing computers looked very much like Steve Ciarcia's.

I particularly liked the Circuit Cellar where he had to break into his own house because he left the stove on. By the time he could disarm the system, the stove would start smoking which would auto-dial the city fire department.

First he invades the yard with its dog-deterrents, then slips into the house bypassing the window sensors, skips over the pressure-sensitive carpets, dodges a bunch of other things, and finally makes it to the basement where the alarm box is. He needs light so he opens the fridge - alas, that sets of the alarm but the alarm doesn't successfully dial. :-)

I googled but couldn't find it online. Good times. :-)

Here is another timeless piece: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/right-to-read.html

I recommend this to every teenager I can. Stallman writes great code, marvelous contracts and pretty decent scifi.

I really miss BYTE magazine.

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.

He's 60 this year. He was crying on a staircase this year in Spain. Someone stole his laptop.

His laptop was stolen in Argentina, I think.

Yet his creation succeeded spectacularly.

I don't think it's fair to treat him this way.

Except for the kernel, pretty much everything I use is GNU or was inspired by GNU. From the coreutils to the window environment, passing through the compiler, most linux systems are half GNU.

Besides, we need activists like Stallman in the same way we need activists like Peta or activists like Greenpeace. They might be too radical and close-minded, but they always have a point; they force society to rethink some of its values, and act as whistle-blowers for some injustices that might go unnoticed.

Stallman is league different from those, he contributes both valuable product and coherent legal analysis. His only harm comes in a occasional bitter verbal lash at his opponents, and how his moral superiority makes compromisers feel uncomfortable.

And yet the guy is almost certainly an order of magnitude more successful and respected than you.

I had no idea jorahmormont was that successful or respected ;-)

I wish I were one order of magnitude less accomplished than rms...

also his passport. If I understand correctly, he was distressed he can't get to Brasil for his next talk.

Also future talks will also be affected. Imagine how bad it is to lose your passport in a foreign country. Instead of catching the flight next day you have a visit at the embassy and a lot of waiting.

Instead of catching the flight next day you have a visit at the embassy

FYI, it would technically be a consulate which helps someone whose passport has been stolen; embassies deal with relations between governments, not with providing assistance to individuals.

(It's a common point of confusion, but one which might be useful to have straight if your passport ever gets stolen!)

Is this an attempt at mockery? Please, let me be the next 60-year-old with my code powering half of the planet, a philosophy thirty years ahead of its time, touring the world, with my laptop stolen en route to my next talk.

You say "philosophy thirty years ahead of its time" I say philosophy founded on wrong assumptions.

whoa. I wasn't, uhm, jeez. Why do you assume I was trying to insult him.

Then what were you trying to do?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com