Not everybody accepted the contract. The explosive innovation continued throughout the decade, resulting in a host of Emacs-like programs with varying degrees of cross-compatibility. A few cited their relation to Stallman"s original Emacs with humorously recursive names: Sine (Sine is not Emacs), Eine (Eine is not Emacs), and Zwei (Zwei was Eine initially). As a devoted exponent of the hacker ethic, Stallman saw no reason to halt this innovation through legal hara.s.sment. Still, the fact that some people would so eagerly take software from the community chest, alter it, and slap a new name on the resulting software displayed a stunning lack of courtesy.
Such rude behavior was reflected against other, unsettling developments in the hacker community. Brian Reid"s 1979 decision to embed "time bombs" in Scribe, making it possible for Unilogic to limit unpaid user access to the software, was a dark omen to Stallman.
"He considered it the most n.a.z.i thing he ever saw in his life," recalls Reid. Despite going on to later Internet fame as the cocreator of the Usenet alt heirarchy, Reid says he still has yet to live down that 1979 decision, at least in Stallman"s eyes. "He said that all software should be free and the prospect of charging money for software was a crime against humanity."In a 1996 interview with online magazine MEME , Stallman cited Scribe"s sale as irksome, but hesitated to mention Reid by name. "The problem was n.o.body censured or punished this student for what he did,"
Stallman said. "The result was other people got tempted to follow his example." See MEME 2.04.
Although Stallman had been powerless to head off Reid"s sale, he did possess the ability to curtail other forms of behavior deemed contrary to the hacker ethos. As central source-code maintainer for the Emacs "commune,"
Stallman began to wield his power for political effect.
During his final stages of conflict with the administrators at the Laboratory for Computer Science over pa.s.sword systems, Stallman initiated a software " strike,"See Steven Levy, Hackers (Penguin USA [paperback], 1984): 419.
refusing to send lab members the latest version of Emacs until they rejected the security system on the lab"s computers. The move did little to improve Stallman"s growing reputation as an extremist, but it got the point across: commune members were expected to speak up for basic hacker values.
"A lot of people were angry with me, saying I was trying to hold them hostage or blackmail them, which in a sense I was," Stallman would later tell author Steven Levy. "I was engaging in violence against them because I thought they were engaging in violence to everyone at large."
Over time, Emacs became a sales tool for the hacker ethic. The flexibility Stallman and built into the software not only encouraged collaboration, it demanded it. Users who didn"t keep abreast of the latest developments in Emacs evolution or didn"t contribute their contributions back to Stallman ran the risk of missing out on the latest breakthroughs. And the breakthroughs were many. Twenty years later, users had modified Emacs for so many different uses-using it as a spreadsheet, calculator, database, and web browser-that later Emacs developers adopted an overflowing sink to represent its versatile functionality. "That"s the idea that we wanted to convey," says Stallman. "The amount of stuff it has contained within it is both wonderful and awful at the same time."
Stallman"s AI Lab contemporaries are more charitable.
Hal Abelson, an MIT grad student who worked with Stallman during the 1970s and would later a.s.sist Stallman as a charter boardmember of the Free Software Foundation, describes Emacs as "an absolutely brilliant creation." In giving programmers a way to add new software libraries and features without messing up the system, Abelson says, Stallman paved the way for future large-scale collaborative software projects. "Its structure was robust enough that you"d have people all over the world who were loosely collaborating [and]
contributing to it," Abelson says. "I don"t know if that had been done before."In writing this chapter, I"ve elected to focus more on the social significance of Emacs than the software significance. To read more about the software side, I recommend Stallman"s 1979 memo. I particularly recommend the section t.i.tled "Research Through Development of Installed Tools" (#SEC27). Not only is it accessible to the nontechnical reader, it also sheds light on how closely intertwined Stallman"s political philosophies are with his software-design philosophies.
A sample excerpt follows: EMACS could not have been reached by a process of careful design, because such processes arrive only at goals which are visible at the outset, and whose desirability is established on the bottom line at the outset. Neither I nor anyone else visualized an extensible editor until I had made one, nor appreciated its value until he had experienced it.
EMACS exists because I felt free to make individually useful small improvements on a path whose end was not in sight.
Guy Steele expresses similar admiration. Currently a research scientist for Sun Microsystems, he remembers Stallman primarily as a "brilliant programmer with the ability to generate large quant.i.ties of relatively bug-free code." Although their personalities didn"t exactly mesh, Steele and Stallman collaborated long enough for Steele to get a glimpse of Stallman"s intense coding style. He recalls a notable episode in the late 1970s when the two programmers banded together to write the editor"s "pretty print" feature.
Originally conceived by Steele, pretty print was another keystroke-triggerd feature that reformatted Emacs" source code so that it was both more readable and took up less s.p.a.ce, further bolstering the program"s WYSIWIG qualities. The feature was strategic enough to attract Stallman"s active interest, and it wasn"t long before Steele wrote that he and Stallman were planning an improved version.
"We sat down one morning," recalls Steele. "I was at the keyboard, and he was at my elbow," says Steele. "He was perfectly willing to let me type, but he was also telling me what to type.
The programming session lasted 10 hours. Throughout that entire time, Steele says, neither he nor Stallman took a break or made any small talk. By the end of the session, they had managed to hack the pretty print source code to just under 100 lines. "My fingers were on the keyboard the whole time," Steele recalls, "but it felt like both of our ideas were flowing onto the screen. He told me what to type, and I typed it."
The length of the session revealed itself when Steele finally left the AI Lab. Standing outside the building at 545 Tech Square, he was surprised to find himself surrounded by nighttime darkness. As a programmer, Steele was used to marathon coding sessions. Still, something about this session was different. Working with Stallman had forced Steele to block out all external stimuli and focus his entire mental energies on the task at hand. Looking back, Steele says he found the Stallman mind-meld both exhilarating and scary at the same time. "My first thought afterward was: it was a great experience, very intense, and that I never wanted to do it again in my life."
A Stark Moral Choice
On September 27, 1983, computer programmers logging on to the Usenet newsgroup net.unix-wizards encountered an unusual message. Posted in the small hours of the morning, 12:30 a.m. to be exact, and signed by [email protected] , the message"s subject line was terse but attention-grabbing. "New UNIX implementation," it read.
Instead of introducing a newly released version of Unix, however, the message"s opening paragraph issued a call to arms: Starting this Thanksgiving I am going to write a complete Unix-compatible software system called GNU (for Gnu"s Not Unix), and give it away free to everyone who can use it. Contributions of time, money, programs and equipment are greatly needed.1 To an experienced Unix developer, the message was a mixture of idealism and hubris. Not only did the author pledge to rebuild the already mature Unix operating system from the ground up, he also proposed to improve it in places. The new GNU system, the author predicted, would carry all the usual components-a text editor, a sh.e.l.l program to run Unix-compatible applications, a compiler, "and a few other things."See Richard Stallman, "Initial GNU Announcement"
(September 1983).
It would also contain many enticing features that other Unix systems didn"t yet offer: a graphic user interface based on the Lisp programming language, a crash-proof file system, and networking protocols built according to MIT"s internal networking system.
"GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix," the author wrote. "We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems."
Antic.i.p.ating a skeptical response on some readers"
part, the author made sure to follow up his operating-system outline with a brief biographical sketch t.i.tled, "Who am I?": I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor, now at the Artificial Intelligence Lab at MIT. I have worked extensively on compilers, editors, deb.u.g.g.e.rs, command interpreters, the Incompatible Timesharing System and the Lisp Machine operating system. I pioneered terminal-independent display support in ITS.
In addition I have implemented one crashproof file system and two window systems for Lisp machines. As fate would have it, Stallman"s fanciful GNU Project missed its Thanksgiving launch date. By January, 1984, however, Stallman made good on his promise and fully immersed himself in the world of Unix software development. For a software architect raised on ITS, it was like designing suburban shopping malls instead of Moorish palaces. Even so, building a Unix-like operating system had its hidden advantages. ITS had been powerful, but it also possessed an Achilles" heel: MIT hackers had designed it to take specific advantage of the DEC-built PDP line. When AI Lab administrators elected to phase out the lab"s powerful PDP-10 machine in the early 1980s, the operating system that hackers once likened to a vibrant city became an instant ghost town. Unix, on the other hand, was designed for mobility and long-term survival. Originally developed by junior scientists at AT&T, the program had slipped out under corporate-management radar, finding a happy home in the cash-strapped world of academic computer systems. With fewer resources than their MIT brethren, Unix developers had customized the software to ride atop a motley a.s.sortment of hardware systems: everything from the 16-bit PDP-11-a machine considered fit for only small tasks by most AI Lab hackers-to 32-bit mainframes such as the VAX 11/780. By 1983, a few companies, most notably Sun Microsystems, were even going so far as to develop a new generation of microcomputers, dubbed "workstations," to take advantage of the increasingly ubiquitous operating system.
To facilitate this process, the developers in charge of designing the dominant Unix strains made sure to keep an extra layer of abstraction between the software and the machine. Instead of tailoring the operating system to take advantage of a specific machine"s resources-as the AI Lab hackers had done with ITS and the PDP-10-Unix developers favored a more generic, off-the-rack approach. Focusing more on the interlocking standards and specifications that held the operating system"s many subcomponents together, rather than the actual components themselves, they created a system that could be quickly modified to suit the tastes of any machine. If a user quibbled with a certain portion, the standards made it possible to pull out an individual subcomponent and either fix it or replace it with something better. Simply put, what the Unix approach lacked in terms of style or aesthetics, it more than made up for in terms of flexibility and economy, hence its rapid adoption.See Marshall Kirk McKusick, "Twenty Years of Berkeley Unix," Open Sources (O"Reilly & a.s.sociates, Inc., 1999): 38.
Stallman"s decision to start developing the GNU system was triggered by the end of the ITS system that the AI Lab hackers had nurtured for so long. The demise of ITS had been a traumatic blow to Stallman. Coming on the heels of the Xerox laser printer episode, it offered further evidence that the AI Lab hacker culture was losing its immunity to business practices in the outside world.
Like the software code that composed it, the roots of ITS" demise stretched way back. Defense spending, long a major font for computer-science research, had dried up during the post-Vietnam years. In a desperate quest for new funds, laboratories and universities turned to the private sector. In the case of the AI Lab, winning over private investors was an easy sell. Home to some of the most ambitious computer-science projects of the post-war era, the lab became a quick incubator of technology. Indeed, by 1980, most of the lab"s staff, including many hackers, were dividing its time between Inst.i.tute and commercial projects.
What at first seemed like a win-win deal-hackers got to work on the best projects, giving the lab first look at many of the newest computer technologies coming down the pike-soon revealed itself as a Faustian bargain.
The more time hackers devoted to cutting-edge commercial projects, the less time they had to devote to general maintenance on the lab"s baroque software infrastructure. Soon, companies began hiring away hackers outright in an attempt to monopolize their time and attention. With fewer hackers to mind the shop, programs and machines took longer to fix. Even worse, Stallman says, the lab began to undergo a "demographic change." The hackers who had once formed a vocal minority within the AI Lab were losing membership while "the professors and the students who didn"t really love the [PDP-10] were just as numerous as before."See Richard Stallman (1986).
The breaking point came in 1982. That was the year the lab"s administration decided to upgrade its main computer, the PDP-10. Digital, the corporation that manufactured the PDP-10, had discontinued the line.
Although the company still offered a high-powered mainframe, dubbed the KL-10, the new machine required a drastic rewrite or "port" of ITS if hackers wanted to continue running the same operating system. Fearful that the lab had lost its critical ma.s.s of in-house programming talent, AI Lab faculty members pressed for Twenex, a commercial operating system developed by Digital. Outnumbered, the hackers had no choice but to comply.
"Without hackers to maintain the system, [faculty members] said, "We"re going to have a disaster; we must have commercial software,"" Stallman would recall a few years later. "They said, "We can expect the company to maintain it." It proved that they were utterly wrong, but that"s what they did."
At first, hackers viewed the Twenex system as yet another authoritarian symbol begging to be subverted.
The system"s name itself was a protest. Officially dubbed TOPS-20 by DEC, it was a successor to TOPS-10, a commercial operating system DEC marketed for the PDP-10. Bolt Beranek Newman had deveoped an improved version, dubbed Tenex, which TOPS-20 drew upon.Multiple sources: see Richard Stallman interview, Gerald Sussman email, and Jargon File 3.0.0.
Stallman, the hacker who coined the Twenex term, says he came up with the name as a way to avoid using the TOPS-20 name. "The system was far from tops, so there was no way I was going to call it that," Stallman recalls. "So I decided to insert a "w" in the Tenex name and call it Twenex."
The machine that ran the Twenex/TOPS-20 system had its own derisive nickname: Oz. According to one hacker legend, the machine got its nickname because it required a smaller PDP-11 machine to power its terminal. One hacker, upon viewing the KL-10-PDP-11 setup for the first time, likened it to the wizard"s bombastic onscreen introduction in the Wizard of Oz. "I am the great and powerful Oz," the hacker intoned. "Pay no attention to the PDP-11 behind that console."See ~geek/humor/See_Figure_1.txt
If hackers laughed when they first encountered the KL-10, their laughter quickly died when they encountered Twenex. Not only did Twenex boast built-in security, but the system"s software engineers had designed the tools and applications with the security system in mind. What once had been a cat-and-mouse game over pa.s.swords in the case of the Laboratory for Computer Science"s security system, now became an out-and-out battle over system management. System administrators argued that without security, the Oz system was more p.r.o.ne to accidental crashes. Hackers argued that crashes could be better prevented by overhauling the source code. Unfortunately, the number of hackers with the time and inclination to perform this sort of overhaul had dwindled to the point that the system-administrator argument prevailed.
Cadging pa.s.swords and deliberately crashing the system in order to glean evidence from the resulting wreckage, Stallman successfully foiled the system administrators"
attempt to a.s.sert control. After one foiled "coup d"etat," Stallman issued an alert to the entire AI staff.
"There has been another attempt to seize power,"
Stallman wrote. "So far, the aristocratic forces have been defeated." To protect his ident.i.ty, Stallman signed the message "Radio Free OZ."
The disguise was a thin one at best. By 1982, Stallman"s aversion to pa.s.swords and secrecy had become so well known that users outside the AI Laboratory were using his account as a stepping stone to the ARPAnet, the research-funded computer network that would serve as a foundation for today"s Internet. One such "tourist" during the early 1980s was Don Hopkins, a California programmer who learned through the hacking grapevine that all an outsider needed to do to gain access to MIT"s vaunted ITS system was to log in under the initials RMS and enter the same three-letter monogram when the system requested a pa.s.sword.
"I"m eternally grateful that MIT let me and many other people use their computers for free," says Hopkins. "It meant a lot to many people."
This so-called "tourist" policy, which had been openly tolerated by MIT management during the ITS years,See "MIT AI Lab Tourist Policy."
fell by the wayside when Oz became the lab"s primary link to the ARPAnet. At first, Stallman continued his policy of repeating his login ID as a pa.s.sword so outside users could follow in his footsteps. Over time, however, the Oz"s fragility prompted administrators to bar outsiders who, through sheer accident or malicious intent, might bring down the system. When those same administrators eventually demanded that Stallman stop publishing his pa.s.sword, Stallman, citing personal ethics, refused to do so and ceased using the Oz system altogether.3
"[When] pa.s.swords first appeared at the MIT AI Lab I [decided] to follow my belief that there should be no pa.s.swords," Stallman would later say. "Because I don"t believe that it"s really desirable to have security on a computer, I shouldn"t be willing to help uphold the security regime."
Stallman"s refusal to bow before the great and powerful Oz symbolized the growing tension between hackers and AI Lab management during the early 1980s. This tension paled in comparison to the conflict that raged within the hacker community itself. By the time the KL-10 arrived, the hacker community had already divided into two camps. The first centered around a software company called Symbolics, Inc. The second centered around Symbolics chief rival, Lisp Machines, Inc. (LMI). Both companies were in a race to market the Lisp Machine, a device built to take full advantage of the Lisp programming language.
Created by artificial-intelligence research pioneer John McCarthy, a MIT artificial-intelligence researcher during the late 1950s, Lisp is an elegant language well-suited for programs charged with heavy-duty sorting and processing. The language"s name is a shortened version of LISt Processing. Following McCarthy"s departure to the Stanford Artificial Intelligence Laboratory, MIT hackers refined the language into a local dialect dubbed MACLISP. The "MAC"
stood for Project MAC, the DARPA-funded research project that gave birth to the AI Lab and the Laboratory for Computer Science. Led by AI Lab arch-hacker Richard Greenblatt, AI Lab programmers during the 1970s built up an entire Lisp-based operating system, dubbed the Lisp Machine operating system. By 1980, the Lisp Machine project had generated two commercial spin-offs. Symbolics was headed by Russell Noftsker, a former AI Lab administrator, and Lisp Machines, Inc., was headed by Greenblatt.
The Lisp Machine software was hacker-built, meaning it was owned by MIT but available for anyone to copy as per hacker custom. Such a system limited the marketing advantage of any company hoping to license the software from MIT and market it as unique. To secure an advantage, and to bolster the aspects of the operating system that customers might consider attractive, the companies recruited various AI Lab hackers and set them working on various components of the Lisp Machine operating system outside the auspices of the AI Lab.
The most aggressive in this strategy was Symbolics. By the end of 1980, the company had hired 14 AI Lab staffers as part-time consultants to develop its version of the Lisp Machine. Apart from Stallman, the rest signed on to help LMI.See H. P. Newquist, The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego, and Greed in the Quest for Machines that Think (Sams Publishing, 1994): 172.
At first, Stallman accepted both companies" attempt to commercialize the Lisp machine, even though it meant more work for him. Both licensed the Lisp Machine OS source code from MIT, and it was Stallman"s job to update the lab"s own Lisp Machine to keep pace with the latest innovations. Although Symbolics" license with MIT gave Stallman the right to review, but not copy, Symbolics" source code, Stallman says a "gentleman"s agreement" between Symbolics management and the AI Lab made it possible to borrow attractive snippets in traditional hacker fashion.
On March 16, 1982, a date Stallman remembers well because it was his birthday, Symbolics executives decided to end this gentlemen"s agreement. The move was largely strategic. LMI, the primary compet.i.tion in the Lisp Machine marketplace, was essentially using a copy of the AI Lab Lisp Machine. Rather than subsidize the development of a market rival, Symbolics executives elected to enforce the letter of the license. If the AI Lab wanted its operating system to stay current with the Symbolics operating system, the lab would have to switch over to a Symbolics machine and sever its connection to LMI.
As the person responsible for keeping up the lab"s Lisp Machine, Stallman was incensed. Viewing this announcement as an "ultimatum," he retaliated by disconnecting Symbolics" microwave communications link to the laboratory. He then vowed never to work on a Symbolics machine and pledged his immediate allegiance to LMI. "The way I saw it, the AI Lab was a neutral country, like Belgium in World War I," Stallman says.
"If Germany invades Belgium, Belgium declares war on Germany and sides with Britain and France."
The circ.u.mstances of the so-called "Symbolics War" of 1982-1983 depend heavily on the source doing the telling. When Symbolics executives noticed that their latest features were still appearing in the AI Lab Lisp Machine and, by extension, the LMI Lisp machine, they installed a "spy" program on Stallman"s computer terminal. Stallman says he was rewriting the features from scratch, taking advantage of the license"s review clause but also taking pains to make the source code as different as possible. Symbolics executives argued otherwise and took their case to MIT administration.
According to 1994 book, The Brain Makers: Genius, Ego, and Greed, and the Quest for Machines That Think, written by Harvey Newquist, the administration responded with a warning to Stallman to "stay away"