From 1ae0306a3cf2ea27f60b2d205789994d260c2cce Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Christian Grothoff Date: Sun, 11 Oct 2020 13:29:45 +0200 Subject: add i18n FSFS --- .../blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html | 508 +++++++++++++++++++++ 1 file changed, 508 insertions(+) create mode 100644 talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html (limited to 'talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html') diff --git a/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html new file mode 100644 index 0000000..d8626a4 --- /dev/null +++ b/talermerchantdemos/blog/articles/en/byte-interview.html @@ -0,0 +1,508 @@ + + +BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman +- GNU Project - Free Software Foundation + + +

BYTE Interview with Richard Stallman

+ +

Conducted by David Betz and Jon Edwards

+ +

Richard Stallman discusses his public-domain Unix-compatible + software system with BYTE editors (July 1986)

+ +

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.

+ +

[The current address (since 2005) is: + Free Software Foundation + 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor + Boston, MA 02110-1301, USA + Voice: +1-617-542-5942 + Fax: +1-617-542-2652] +

+ +

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.

+ + + + + + + -- cgit v1.2.3