The message posted Friday evening on emacs-devel by Richard Stallman was cryptic: "Stefan and Yidong offered to take over, so I am willing to hand over Emacs development to them."
Just like that: 32 years after bringing the GNU Emacs text editor into the developer world, Stallman is relinquishing his role as its maintainer. On Saturday morning, I e-mailed him a few questions about his decision and the future of Emacs, which he graciously agreed to answer after first eliciting from me this Stallmanesque pledge:
I'll answer your questions if you promise me that the story will avoid a couple of frequent errors.
One common error is referring to a free operating system as "Linux." That system is basically GNU; Linux is actually the kernel, one program in the system. Calling the whole system "Linux" means giving the system's principal developer none of the credit. See (this link) for more explanation.
Would you please agree to distinguish consistently in your article between Linux, the kernel, and GNU/Linux, the entire system? Since GNU Emacs is part of GNU, this is directly relevant.
The other common error is labeling me, GNU, GNU/Linux, or the GNU GPL with the term "Open Source." That is the slogan adopted in 1998 by people who reject the philosophy of the Free Software Movement. They have the right to promote their views, but we would like to be associated with our views, not theirs. For more explanation, see (this link).
My response to your questions, based on the ideals of the Free Software Movement, would be very different from what a supporter of Open Source would say.
Could you please agree to refer to this work as Free Software in your article, and not as Open Source? In particular, please don't describe GNU Emacs as "Open Source."
In this case, I had only a few questions and they all pertained to Richard Stallman and GNU Emacs, so I'd agree to call the work synchronized swimming in the interest of getting answers. Sunday dinnertime, having been assured of my intended compliance, he answers:
Why now?
I find I am too busy with other work to give Emacs maintenance the attention it deserves. I've been considering handing the maintainership over to others for most of a year.
Are you doing this reluctantly? Or eagerly?
I feel nostalgia, but not very strongly.
Pardon my unfamiliarity with them, but who are Stefan and Yidong?
Stefan Monnier and Chong Yidong are two of the main Emacs developers of recent years.
What do you see as the future of Emacs?
I would like to see it extended to operate as a word processor, editing formatted text.
32 years is a long time to devote to anything. Any parting thoughts?
I have not spent 32 years working on Emacs, and I'm not quite "parting."
Since I first wrote GNU Emacs in 1984, I have not been the maintainer all the time. In fact, three other people have been the maintainer of GNU Emacs at various times. Gerd Moellman was the Maintainer for about 4 years, until a while after the release of Emacs 21. During that time he implemented display of variable-width text. He decided to stop, so I took up the maintainership again.
I'm pretty sure I've held up my end of the bargain.
Welcome regulars and passersby. Here are a few more recent Buzzblog items. And, if you'd like to receive Buzzblog via e-mail newsletter, here's where to sign up.
Feds stymie EFF look at Google/DoJ coziness.
Call "retail renting" what it is: short-term theft.
Confessions of a Caller-ID spoofer.
Google renames the Persian Gulf.
Wikileaks.org pummeled into darkness.
Get $500 just for going on a job interview. (No, really.)
My brother's brush with Vespa bandits.
Top 10 Buzzblog posts for '07: Verizon's there, of course, along with Gates, Wikipedia and the guy who lost a girlfriend to Blackberry's blackout.
|
|
Reason for the "Stallmanesque" pledge
You've got to remember that he's not just talking about openly available source code for programs. He's talking about the First Amendment--freedom of speech, freedom of the press, etc. His goal is to keep freedom alive, basically the geek version of MLK Jr. That's why you got asked for that "Stallmanesque pledge."
And for those who would criticize him, well, if you're criticizing him on his personal delivery sometimes, well, you'd be correct. He can be a little rough sometimes, certainly. However, he must be doing something right, since he's gotten more than one audience with leaders of several countries and helped to convince them that Free Software is the way to go.
Another testament that he's doing something right: we now have GNU/Linux to use, thanks largely to him. Linus Torvalds would never have been able to write Linux if it hadn't been for GCC. Hell, even the BSD's wouldn't exist as we know them if not for GNU and Stallman's efforts. So I thank him every day I use a computer.
So when you criticize him, bear all that in mind.
--TP
I (^) emacs
I still love using emacs after all these years. Thanks RMS :)
BSD does not use GNU
I'd like to point out that the BSD's have their own userland tools, not the ones from GNU.
Yes, you can install the GNU tools, but they are *NOT* part of BSD anymore than Apache or OpenOffice is a part of BSD.
You don't see Stallman advocating for GNU/BSD for a reason! ;-)
BSD uses GNU
BSD may not have has much GNU software as your typical Linux distribution (though there's no reason why somebody couldn't make a Linux distribution with the *BSD toolset) but it certainly has quite a bit.
For example, remember gcc and the binutils it uses? There's other examples as well.
Still, every time RMS insists that `it's not Linux, it's GNU/Linux', I have to roll my eyes. (But at least it's not lignux anymore.)
RMS, a constant
He's tough and drives a hard bargain; I think the requirements he sent were pro-format (I've seen one looking exactly like that before), but then if, like him, you had to explain the differences between Linux and a complete OS, then the nuances between Open Source and Free Software, you'd put this tape player on automatic playback too...
emacs is an all-in-one editor/IDE/terminal/shell/toaster (well, maybe not toaster) that is being used quite extensively (maybe more than vi, or not, or... let's stop here). As such, it is probably one of the most important pieces of software the GNU OS has: emacs was used to create gcc, but also probably more than its fair share of Linux (yes, Linux is 'only' a kernel), of bash, of Xorg...
While emacs isn't as important as it once was (its cryptic interface and commands are hell to understand, especially for non-English speaking users, but they all stand for a reason, and once the logic is understood surprisingly efficient, forget about that mouse) due to a lot of choice in other IDEs, shells and work environments, it still is extremely important.
On Free Software and Open Source: RMS defends the freedom to use, analyze, modify, and redistribute software. The Open Source movement, generally speaking, agrees with those freedoms - but for many, only a few of these freedoms are relevant, and for most, one or more of those freedoms are a consequence of the others. The risk RMS finds in Open Source, is that the idea of freedom actually gets buried under the advantages it brings.
Now, most Open Source activists agree with the idea of freedom, but most disagree with RMS' radical view of it. Linus Torvalds, for example, considers that Open source is a great way to create software; the freedoms are a nice bonus, but whatever works. He may be a bit more pragmatic when he says that (in GPLv3) the restrictions against DRM and Tivo-isation are 'too much': they actually prevent the use of software in some cases, which, according to him, contradicts the freedom to modify and use the software as one sees fit, while RMS defends the idea that if one freedom is in danger, then all are, so the software shouldn't be used.
Thing is, RMS is right:if one freedom goes, all will follow. On the other hand, LT defends the idea that if you forbid software use too often, then you get no freedom at all.
Who would have thought that computer programming would drive one to philosophy?
Computer Programming
Quote: "Who would have thought that computer programming would drive one to philosophy?"
This is a very good question. My opinion is, Computer programming involves logical thinking, that is, logic. And logic by tradition is a branch of philosophy. No wonder, some programmers have been involved into philosophical debates.
I guess I'm not real
I guess I'm not real surprised that a guy who started a movement has some philosophical interest, perhaps I'm alone on this.
Maybe philosophy drives some people to programming.
Nice interview
Hi Paul, I liked your interview because it got to the point; sometimes I like detail, but I like this short one too. What I liked most is how you offered to call the work as synchronised swimming :)
Stalman continues his
Stalman continues his tiresome assertion that we should call an Operating System based on the Linux kernel something other than Linux. We don't call Windows Microsoft Windows/Office/PDF/Photoshop do we? If Stallman gets his way we'll need to call it Linux/GNU/Open Office/Symphony/Gimp etc etc.
It's silly and journalists shouldn't pander to him.
Office, PDF & Photoshop ( or
Office, PDF & Photoshop ( or Open Office, Symphony & Gimp ) aren't part of their operating systems.
The basic utilities that GNU provides ( like the shell ) are essential part of the OS, without which you couldn't actually run your computer & interact with it.