15 ms·

New UNIX implementation (1983)

370 points by liotier 13y ago

ctdonath 13y ago
Innocent question: what happened to GNU? Lotsa good tools available, but as Minix spawned Linux which has a good chunk of the world, GNU as an OS seems but a legend.
- AlexeyBrin 13y ago
  They have a working kernel, HURD, you can play with it using a Debian release: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
- jdreaver 13y ago
  Their OS is called GNU Hurd. [1] Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
  - dragonwriter 13y ago
    > Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. Its probably hard with far fewer active developers, and even harder with the amount of Hurd's development effort that's gone into a series of dead-end efforts to replace the kernel.
  - acuozzo 13y ago
    s/\<OS\>/kernel
    - jdreaver 13y ago
      That's what I thought, but the Wikipedia article states: "GNU Hurd (usually referred to as the Hurd) is a computer operating system using the GNU Mach kernel designed as a replacement for Unix..." So it looks like GNU Mach is the kernel.
  - sweettea 13y ago
    Especially hard to catch up with Linux when Linux began development in 1991 and Hurd began in 1983. Linux is only -8 years ahead of Hurd in development, you'd think Hurd could have caught up by now.
    - pjmlp 13y ago
      Well, it is only so, given the amount of money and resources IBM, Intel and friends put into Linux. How far would be Linux without those investments?
      - Touche 13y ago
        Why did they invest in Linux instead of Hurd?
      - dragonwriter 13y ago
        Linux was well ahead of where Hurd was at the time (and, in fact, ahead of where Hurd is now in terms of practical usability) when Linux attracted those investments (which mostly occurred after 2.0 in the mid 1990s when Linux was 5 or so years old and Hurd over a dozen years old.) Kind of ironic, in retrospect, is Linus's original comp.os.minix posting announcing the project, saying on part, "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
        dllthomas 13y ago
        There's been definite progress with HURD recently. I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD (though I'm certainly not sure of the converse, either).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD Mid-90s Linux was more usable on then-current hardware than the Hurd is on now-current hardware, though I suspect that mid-90s Linux would be less usable now (on current hardware) than the Hurd.
  - agumonkey 13y ago
    speaking of progress http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ first comments include slides and videos of gnu hm 2011 and 2013
- randomknowledge 13y ago
  I would consider that a success. The free software ecosystem has grown much larger then any one project or organization.
- noselasd 13y ago
  Most of the base stuff used with linux comes from GNU. glibc, gcc, bash, and many the base tools - which is why many insist on calling it GNU/Linux
- kunai 13y ago
  Well, GNU has traditionally been awful at systems programming. They worked for more than a decade on the HURD kernel even after gcc and coreutils were long completed. Eventually, Linus got tired of waiting and created his own operating system using the GNU utils (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), and HURD pretty much just went away. The mailing lists are full of spam and progress is at a crawl. It's awful. If you want progress, just use Linux.
  - jsymolon 13y ago
    > (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), I'm curious to the difference between the two. Do you have an example ?
    - EdiX 13y ago
      They are a smaller code base, commands take less options, do less things. It's closer to the original UNIX userland. A minority of people prefers this characteristics, history suggests that the majority just enjoys the added features: the GNU userland was widespread before Linux existed, people today install (parts of) the GNU userland on Mac OS X using fink/macports/homebrew.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    "(I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead)" My understanding of the timeline is that 386BSD was not available when Linus started work.
    - jff 13y ago
      In fact, I think he may have once said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he wouldn't have bothered doing Linux, or at least making it into what it is now.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        That does ring a bell, though I've no idea the source.
- mixmastamyk 13y ago
  It's everywhere on Linux, and a even few other places... quite successful. Building the kernel is one of the harder parts of that goal, and when Linux took off the gnu kernel lost a lot of steam. That they chose a more difficult design only helped. But the question is moot now. Even at that early stage, he realizes that GNU doesn't have to write everything. Having a large enough body of libre-software is the real goal. And who knows, in 10 or 20 years it may be time for a new kernel design?
- lmm 13y ago
  "Linux" is the GNU OS - most of the pieces are the same, and many of them have histories that you can trace back well into the '80s. It's just the kernel that's different, but that's one small piece that interoperates with the rest of it.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    There are a lot of parts in a "typical" Linux system these days that are non-GNU, and a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros (dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance). This is not to take anything away from GNU, or the far more central role GNU code played in earlier Linux systems; I think it's totally legitimate to say that modern Linux systems are a success of the GNU project and the GNU vision. But it's less true these days that (desktop) "Linux" is "A GNU system with the Linux kernel."
    - teddyh 13y ago
      > dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance Dash takes the place of the Posix binary /bin/sh for performance and memory reasons. The default shell for users remains /bin/bash — this is what a terminal application will run, which is what a “shell” is supposed to be. The /bin/sh thing is not supposed to be viewed as the shell, and its replacement is a non-issue in this context.
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        Hm, I think I recall some install of something that had only dash by default, but I could easily be misremembering. Regardless it has made bash slightly less central, and there are probably other examples of GNU code being displaced.
        teddyh 13y ago
        Originally you said “a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros”. I challenge this statement and put it to you to provide examples. Simply saying “there are probably other examples” will not do. This sounds like simply wishful thinking to me.
- chubot 13y ago
  GNU is alive and well -- the GNU kernel isn't (or has been making very slow progress). The project just diverged from its original technical goals, which is common. Stallman would say GNU is an OS without a kernel. Debian GNU/Linux would be the complete OS. Someone pointed out on HN recently that many things user space on a typical "Linux" box comes from non-GNU projects, and it's not x11/GNU/Linux, or gnu/FreeBSD, or llvm/FreeBSD. So yeah I sort of see their point.
dllthomas 13y ago
Hm, this may be a bit of history I'm missing: what was meant, in 1983, by "an Empire game"? Edit: Apparently this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Classic_%28video_game%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Classic_%28video_game%29
- tzs 13y ago
  Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_(computer_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_(computer_game)
  - lectrick 13y ago
    Oh wow. I didn't realize the game Strategic Conquest was pretty much a copy of Empire, for Mac. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Conquest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Conquest
- NDizzle 13y ago
  Yes, Empire should be up there with required software like a spreadsheet app and a text editor. If you're even more curious, this is the one to try: http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/index.shtml http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/index.shtml
- Patrick_Devine 13y ago
  Man I miss playing this game. The summer of 1990 we had an Amiga Empire tournament over the summer at our high school (I was going in to grade 11) where a classmate had digitized the world map with Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia, and he had set up a modem so we could call in and play our turns every day. I learned the hard way that you never, ever want to play as the Levant. After being destroyed by India, Africa and Europe, I restarted in New Guinea and was able to take over Australia. This went a long way for me to understand why remote, relatively homogenous cultures tend to be quite stable.
randomknowledge 13y ago
"Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will probably work with the rest of GNU." This stood out to me. Back in 1983 online collaboration was unheard of, and it was only the incredibly modular nature of Unix which made the project seem at all plausible.
- fsck--off 13y ago
  > Back in 1983 online collaboration was unheard of Not really. Stallman mentioned Chaosnet which the AI Lab had used for, among other things, internal mail (not yet called "e-mails") between developers about changes to programs. He also mentions UUCP, which was the godawful Unix way of sharing files (and which could be used for mail purposes).
- aryastark 13y ago
  This is really, IMO, why no new community OS has ever taken off. Only clones of existing architectures. I was briefly involved with TUNES many years ago. Getting people on the same page is an immense task, when creating something new and different. You get stuck in the bike shed tar pit. Focusing on a well-specified Unix clone was definitely the right thing to do.
dpweb 13y ago
Can't believe "on-line" and "snail mail" were terms being used in 1983!
- lectrick 13y ago
  I wouldn't be surprised if he invented snail-mail Dude was proverbially "leet as fuck" back in that day.
  - angersock 13y ago
    6|\||_| h4x0r5
- tmoullet 13y ago
  Found a reference to snail mail in 1968. http://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112-IA5&dq=%22snail+mail%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0QxGUvWtG-mCygGa7oCgCw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22snail%20mail%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112-IA5&d...
fsck--off 13y ago
"I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor." Stallman may have significantly improved Emacs, but he isn't the inventor. Guy Steele and David Moon are. Stallman only took over development after it had become the standard AI text editor. Stallman wasn't even the first one to implement Emacs in Lisp; Dan Weinreb did it first. "Inventor of the original" makes it sound like Emacs was his original idea. http://web.archive.org/web/20110719154038/http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi http://web.archive.org/web/20110719154038/http://danweinreb....
- InclinedPlane 13y ago
  It wouldn't be the last system that Stallman glommed onto and tried to take excessive credit for.
- alayne 13y ago
  On that page Guy Steele says "(3) RMS is responsible for the names “E” and “EMACS”. RMS still deserves 99% or 99.9% or 99.99% or 99.999% of the credit for taking a package of TECO macros and turning it into the most powerful editor on the planet, twice (first in TECO and then with ELISP),"
  - deleted 13y ago
    [deleted]
- Touche 13y ago
  Stallman taking credit for others work? Nah, don't believe it.
- ecopoesis 13y ago
  I really dislike the term invent when applied to creating software. Emacs was never invented, it was written (or if you prefer, coded). Text editors were invented long before Emacs. Just iterating and improving on a concept doesn't make you inventor.
  - 13y ago
crncosta 13y ago
Thanks Stallman for never give up of his dreams.
specialp 13y ago
Hopefully in 30 years people will be able to read such seminal messages. Now that a lot of discussion is happening on proprietary platforms without a standard it may not be the case.
- rocky1138 13y ago
  I totally get what you're saying, and agree. But just in case: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
- mjn 13y ago
  It's already the case with some stuff from the '90s: there was important stuff announced and discussed on CompuServe and AOL forums that has not been publicly archived. There are some personal archives out there, but they are pretty spotty. Often the only surviving (or at least accessible) record comes in the form of occasional quotes in other venues, like an academic paper from the 1990s that included a blockquote and a citation to a now-unreachable network address.
segmondy 13y ago
Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. How I wish this became true, it's not too late right?
- chubot 13y ago
  I wonder GNU Guile fills this requirement. It exists, but isn't common. I've never personally encountered it. Python or Lua seem much more prevalent as extension languages on a typical GNU/Linux system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Guile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Guile
  - snogglethorpe 13y ago
    FWIW, it's starting to look like the long-considered plan to move Emacs to Guile may actually become a reality: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/162042 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/162042 This has been a vague goal since the mid-'90s, and given the popularity of elisp etc, would probably be a nice boost for Guile, but the gulf between neat-idea and messy reality has always seemed so vast that I never thought it would actually happen. [I haven't used Guile since the '90s... it was a bit of a disaster back then, but from what I hear, it's improved immensely (i.e., largely been rewritten) since.]
- informatimago 13y ago
  It is not too late. StumpWM is written in lisp. If I had more time, I could write a manifest like RMS's about a system entirely written in Lisp. At least, I've started to gather a few files in a git repository.
- fedvasu 13y ago
  Try Fedora, they have guile 2.o working out of the box, guile binds C libraries quite easily, the documentation is decent (and ofcourse under GFDL). Fedora is pretty much the "GNU/Linux", RMS wanted (except some firmware, which RMS is touchy about.) Fedora has very good, tools for developers (all libre/opensource), they even have a feature slated for Fedora 20 called dev-assist, which helps setup several development environments and manage them pretty easily.
therealunreal 13y ago
Thank you, Mr. Stallman.
samatman 13y ago
A fascinating contrast to the announcment of Linux: http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announcement-from-linus-torvalds/ http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announc... RMS starts with a grandiose vision, which (at the time of writing) he hadn't even begun. He then asks for time, money, and equipment, before the end of the first paragraph. The very first thing promised, a kernel, has never been effectively delivered. Linus starts with a modest disclaimer, then asks for feedback as to what other potential users might want most. Night and day. Yet, could we have had one without the other?
- sp332 13y ago
  I think HURD's kernel would have had more pressure to deliver something (instead of endless academic bickering) without a serviceable Linux kernel. And GNU userspace has been pretty good!
  - sanderjd 13y ago
    Or it may have still fallen into endless academic bickering with nothing delivered and the GNU userspace may have therefore failed to take off at all. We'll never know what would have happened!
- polskibus 13y ago
  Great contrast. Iterative vs waterfall software life cycle.
- wmf 13y ago
  ...starts with a grandiose vision, which (at the time of writing) he hadn't even begun. He then asks for time, money, and equipment, before the end of the first paragraph. The very first thing promised ... has never been effectively delivered. That sounds like a Kickstarter pitch. RMS was ahead of his time in yet another way.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    It'd be amusing if the FSF posted it verbatim to Kickstarter (or a "Free" participant in that space, anyway) now...
eltondegeneres 13y ago
The GNU system announcement is also on gnu.org, if you're not too kean on Google Groups. <https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html>
vorbote 13y ago
"GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, [...] Linux has, eventually, started to fulfil the promise: technologies like cgroups, dm, uevents, kdbus, alsa..., and the respective userspace: systemd, dmraid, lvm, udev, pulseaudio, show that GNU/Linux is not UNIX but better in some respects.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Genetic unices have progressed as well...
  - vorbote 13y ago
    I agree. And I think that FreeBSD and DragonFly stand over the rest in this respect, both have incredible technology in their guts. Obviously OpenBSD has done wonders teaching people that you can write sane, safe and audited code that works and NetBSD... Oh well, stagnant despite the really good technology that shows up in there frequently, but runs on toasters!
- thelukester 13y ago
  I can’t believe you seriously consider PulseAudio to be a technological improvement. Having used PA for years, I have encountered and reported numerous bugs and performance issues. After trying to debug some PA issues, I lost all respect for Poettering. The only worse sound server that I’ve encountered is AudioFlinger, and at least that has the excuse of being optimized for battery life over latency. It’s clear that systemd will break compatibility with BSD. What isn’t clear yet, is if this is truly a better system. I have nothing against change. I’m all for Wayland. I just have no confidence in Poettering's work. Most of the other improvements that you listed have been in BSD for years. Its sound subsystem OSS4 is also a much cleaner API and better performing interface than ALSA.
enupten 13y ago
I'd assumed from reading the UNIX haters' handbook, that everyone who had used a Lisp machine would automatically hate UNIX :)
- gemlog 13y ago
  RMS wrote: > To begin with, GNU will be a kernel Right. Not so much. That was exactly the last thing to happen as it turned out. He and everyone else in the effort worked on the tools and apps. By contrast: > I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) > and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months Anyhow, torvalds had already put in the work on the kernel and wanted feedback. Torvalds had a kernel and no tools. RMS had tools but no kernel, so the inevitable happened and they were wed. Torvalds even chose the RMS version of a marriage license. The marriage is fruitful, but RMS is frigid and bitchy the whole time, solely over the name of the child -- even though the child has matured and gone on to a brilliant career they can both be proud of. This would also be a good time to note that Torvalds is not the one who chose the name of Linux -- usenet chose it. I have great respect for RMS and admire his courage (and self-discipline) very much, but I really wish he'd let that thing about the kid's name go. Just let it go already Richard.
  - dllthomas 13y ago
    Well no, Torvalds had a kernel and all the tools GNU had created. And Linux is (entirely legitimately) the name of the kernel - the dispute[1] is over the name of systems running a bunch of GNU code on top of a Linux kernel. [1]: Elsewhere it has been contended that RMS has pushed for the name to apply to the kernel itself as well. I don't believe that was ever the case (though will certainly update my beliefs if presented with evidence) but am far more confident that it is not his current position.
mratzloff 13y ago
Now, imagine if Oracle had its way and APIs were copyrightable.
codegeek 13y ago
"Arpanet mail: RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA Usenet: ...!mit-eddie!RMS@OZ ...!mit-vax!RMS@OZ US Snail: Richard Stallman 166 Prospect St Cambridge, MA 02139" Amazing. The use of words like "US-Snail" and all. Looks far cooler and geekier than what we have now usually: xyz xyz@whateveremail.com @xyztwitterhandle
davexunit 13y ago
You can also read it here, complete with an old-school font: article.olduse.net/771@mit-eddie.UUCP This site replays old usenet posts. It was cool to wait for the announcement to pop up on net.unix-wizards. Happy 30th birthday, GNU! There is a GNU hackathon at MIT this weekend, for those that don't know already and might be interested: https://gnu.org/gnu30/ https://gnu.org/gnu30/
mozboz 13y ago
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA :(
TallGuyShort 13y ago
For those interested in the history of open-source "UNIX" clones but who weren't in the industry at the time, I stumbled across this last night and thought it worth sharing: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/. Read the "original comment", "follow up", "code comparison", and "rebuttal".
dorfsmay 13y ago
Weird coincidence as how Google use Sept. 27th as their birthdate...
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
LindaWell 13y ago
my Aunty Paige just got an awesome yellow Nissan Rogue SUV by working part time from a home computer... find more information ...................http://redir.ec/buzz55 http://redir.ec/buzz55
alkonaut 13y ago
Perhaps a novice question coming from a mostly Windows user: an OS I thought handled processes, hardware, etc. It can of course be handy to have a linker/editor/compiler shipped with it too, but why is it considered part of the OS? Is gcc/vi/emacs more a "part" of GNU/Linux than notepad is a part of windows; i.e. just a convenience? Or is linux unusable without a complete c-based tool chain? I know the term "OS" is a fuzzy one, which is probably what causes my confusion.
- pizzeys 13y ago
  My personal opinion, which might not line up with anyone elses: GCC is a 'part' of GNU/Linux because of the goals/aims of GNU/Linux, which is to have a freely modifiable and distributable operating system. If you put yourself in the time when this project was started, there was no free compiler, they simply didn't have one. But in order to meet the goals of the project, they would need one (you might not need one to run it, but you sure do need one to develop it), so it's therefore a very core part of the project. You don't need a c-based tool chain installed to run a GNU/Linux system or make it usable for a non-dev though, no, Ubuntu doesn't have it by default for example.

370 points by liotier 13y ago

Innocent question: what happened to GNU? Lotsa good tools available, but as Minix spawned Linux which has a good chunk of the world, GNU as an OS seems but a legend.

AlexeyBrin 13y ago
They have a working kernel, HURD, you can play with it using a Debian release: http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/ http://www.debian.org/ports/hurd/
jdreaver 13y ago
Their OS is called GNU Hurd. [1] Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. [1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Hurd
- dragonwriter 13y ago
  > Apparently, they are still making progress, but it must be hard to catch up with Linux. Its probably hard with far fewer active developers, and even harder with the amount of Hurd's development effort that's gone into a series of dead-end efforts to replace the kernel.
- acuozzo 13y ago
  s/\<OS\>/kernel
  - jdreaver 13y ago
    That's what I thought, but the Wikipedia article states: "GNU Hurd (usually referred to as the Hurd) is a computer operating system using the GNU Mach kernel designed as a replacement for Unix..." So it looks like GNU Mach is the kernel.
- sweettea 13y ago
  Especially hard to catch up with Linux when Linux began development in 1991 and Hurd began in 1983. Linux is only -8 years ahead of Hurd in development, you'd think Hurd could have caught up by now.
  - pjmlp 13y ago
    Well, it is only so, given the amount of money and resources IBM, Intel and friends put into Linux. How far would be Linux without those investments?
    - Touche 13y ago
      Why did they invest in Linux instead of Hurd?
    - dragonwriter 13y ago
      Linux was well ahead of where Hurd was at the time (and, in fact, ahead of where Hurd is now in terms of practical usability) when Linux attracted those investments (which mostly occurred after 2.0 in the mid 1990s when Linux was 5 or so years old and Hurd over a dozen years old.) Kind of ironic, in retrospect, is Linus's original comp.os.minix posting announcing the project, saying on part, "I'm doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won't be big and professional like gnu) for 386(486) AT clones."
      - dllthomas 13y ago
        There's been definite progress with HURD recently. I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD (though I'm certainly not sure of the converse, either).
        dragonwriter 13y ago
        > I'm not sure mid-90's Linux is still more usable than HURD Mid-90s Linux was more usable on then-current hardware than the Hurd is on now-current hardware, though I suspect that mid-90s Linux would be less usable now (on current hardware) than the Hurd.
- agumonkey 13y ago
  speaking of progress http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ http://lwn.net/Articles/554992/ first comments include slides and videos of gnu hm 2011 and 2013
randomknowledge 13y ago
I would consider that a success. The free software ecosystem has grown much larger then any one project or organization.
noselasd 13y ago
Most of the base stuff used with linux comes from GNU. glibc, gcc, bash, and many the base tools - which is why many insist on calling it GNU/Linux
kunai 13y ago
Well, GNU has traditionally been awful at systems programming. They worked for more than a decade on the HURD kernel even after gcc and coreutils were long completed. Eventually, Linus got tired of waiting and created his own operating system using the GNU utils (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), and HURD pretty much just went away. The mailing lists are full of spam and progress is at a crawl. It's awful. If you want progress, just use Linux.
- jsymolon 13y ago
  > (I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead), I'm curious to the difference between the two. Do you have an example ?
  - EdiX 13y ago
    They are a smaller code base, commands take less options, do less things. It's closer to the original UNIX userland. A minority of people prefers this characteristics, history suggests that the majority just enjoys the added features: the GNU userland was widespread before Linux existed, people today install (parts of) the GNU userland on Mac OS X using fink/macports/homebrew.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  "(I so wished he had used the 386BSD tools instead)" My understanding of the timeline is that 386BSD was not available when Linus started work.
  - jff 13y ago
    In fact, I think he may have once said that if 386BSD had been available at the time, he wouldn't have bothered doing Linux, or at least making it into what it is now.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      That does ring a bell, though I've no idea the source.
mixmastamyk 13y ago
It's everywhere on Linux, and a even few other places... quite successful. Building the kernel is one of the harder parts of that goal, and when Linux took off the gnu kernel lost a lot of steam. That they chose a more difficult design only helped. But the question is moot now. Even at that early stage, he realizes that GNU doesn't have to write everything. Having a large enough body of libre-software is the real goal. And who knows, in 10 or 20 years it may be time for a new kernel design?
lmm 13y ago
"Linux" is the GNU OS - most of the pieces are the same, and many of them have histories that you can trace back well into the '80s. It's just the kernel that's different, but that's one small piece that interoperates with the rest of it.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  There are a lot of parts in a "typical" Linux system these days that are non-GNU, and a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros (dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance). This is not to take anything away from GNU, or the far more central role GNU code played in earlier Linux systems; I think it's totally legitimate to say that modern Linux systems are a success of the GNU project and the GNU vision. But it's less true these days that (desktop) "Linux" is "A GNU system with the Linux kernel."
  - teddyh 13y ago
    > dash in place of bash by default in Debian, for instance Dash takes the place of the Posix binary /bin/sh for performance and memory reasons. The default shell for users remains /bin/bash — this is what a terminal application will run, which is what a “shell” is supposed to be. The /bin/sh thing is not supposed to be viewed as the shell, and its replacement is a non-issue in this context.
    - dllthomas 13y ago
      Hm, I think I recall some install of something that had only dash by default, but I could easily be misremembering. Regardless it has made bash slightly less central, and there are probably other examples of GNU code being displaced.
      - teddyh 13y ago
        Originally you said “a lot of GNU pieces have become less central or been displaced in many distros”. I challenge this statement and put it to you to provide examples. Simply saying “there are probably other examples” will not do. This sounds like simply wishful thinking to me.
chubot 13y ago
GNU is alive and well -- the GNU kernel isn't (or has been making very slow progress). The project just diverged from its original technical goals, which is common. Stallman would say GNU is an OS without a kernel. Debian GNU/Linux would be the complete OS. Someone pointed out on HN recently that many things user space on a typical "Linux" box comes from non-GNU projects, and it's not x11/GNU/Linux, or gnu/FreeBSD, or llvm/FreeBSD. So yeah I sort of see their point.

dllthomas 13y ago

Hm, this may be a bit of history I'm missing: what was meant, in 1983, by "an Empire game"? Edit: Apparently this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Classic_%28video_game%29 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Empire_Classic_%28video_game%29

tzs 13y ago
Or this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_(computer_game) http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_(computer_game)
- lectrick 13y ago
  Oh wow. I didn't realize the game Strategic Conquest was pretty much a copy of Empire, for Mac. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Conquest http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strategic_Conquest
NDizzle 13y ago
Yes, Empire should be up there with required software like a spreadsheet app and a text editor. If you're even more curious, this is the one to try: http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/index.shtml http://www.killerbeesoftware.com/kbsgames/edee/index.shtml
Patrick_Devine 13y ago
Man I miss playing this game. The summer of 1990 we had an Amiga Empire tournament over the summer at our high school (I was going in to grade 11) where a classmate had digitized the world map with Europe, Asia, Africa and Australia, and he had set up a modem so we could call in and play our turns every day. I learned the hard way that you never, ever want to play as the Levant. After being destroyed by India, Africa and Europe, I restarted in New Guinea and was able to take over Australia. This went a long way for me to understand why remote, relatively homogenous cultures tend to be quite stable.

randomknowledge 13y ago

"Individual programmers can contribute by writing a compatible duplicate of some Unix utility and giving it to me. For most projects, such part-time distributed work would be very hard to coordinate; the independently-written parts would not work together. But for the particular task of replacing Unix, this problem is absent. Most interface specifications are fixed by Unix compatibility. If each contribution works with the rest of Unix, it will probably work with the rest of GNU." This stood out to me. Back in 1983 online collaboration was unheard of, and it was only the incredibly modular nature of Unix which made the project seem at all plausible.

fsck--off 13y ago
> Back in 1983 online collaboration was unheard of Not really. Stallman mentioned Chaosnet which the AI Lab had used for, among other things, internal mail (not yet called "e-mails") between developers about changes to programs. He also mentions UUCP, which was the godawful Unix way of sharing files (and which could be used for mail purposes).
aryastark 13y ago
This is really, IMO, why no new community OS has ever taken off. Only clones of existing architectures. I was briefly involved with TUNES many years ago. Getting people on the same page is an immense task, when creating something new and different. You get stuck in the bike shed tar pit. Focusing on a well-specified Unix clone was definitely the right thing to do.

dpweb 13y ago

Can't believe "on-line" and "snail mail" were terms being used in 1983!

lectrick 13y ago
I wouldn't be surprised if he invented snail-mail Dude was proverbially "leet as fuck" back in that day.
- angersock 13y ago
  6|\||_| h4x0r5
tmoullet 13y ago
Found a reference to snail mail in 1968. http://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112-IA5&dq=%22snail+mail%22&hl=en&sa=X&ei=0QxGUvWtG-mCygGa7oCgCw&ved=0CD4Q6AEwAA#v=onepage&q=%22snail%20mail%22&f=false http://books.google.com/books?id=-VMEAAAAMBAJ&pg=PA112-IA5&d...

fsck--off 13y ago

"I am Richard Stallman, inventor of the original much-imitated EMACS editor." Stallman may have significantly improved Emacs, but he isn't the inventor. Guy Steele and David Moon are. Stallman only took over development after it had become the standard AI text editor. Stallman wasn't even the first one to implement Emacs in Lisp; Dan Weinreb did it first. "Inventor of the original" makes it sound like Emacs was his original idea. http://web.archive.org/web/20110719154038/http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi http://web.archive.org/web/20110719154038/http://danweinreb....

InclinedPlane 13y ago
It wouldn't be the last system that Stallman glommed onto and tried to take excessive credit for.
alayne 13y ago
On that page Guy Steele says "(3) RMS is responsible for the names “E” and “EMACS”. RMS still deserves 99% or 99.9% or 99.99% or 99.999% of the credit for taking a package of TECO macros and turning it into the most powerful editor on the planet, twice (first in TECO and then with ELISP),"
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
Touche 13y ago
Stallman taking credit for others work? Nah, don't believe it.
ecopoesis 13y ago
I really dislike the term invent when applied to creating software. Emacs was never invented, it was written (or if you prefer, coded). Text editors were invented long before Emacs. Just iterating and improving on a concept doesn't make you inventor.
- 13y ago

crncosta 13y ago

Thanks Stallman for never give up of his dreams.

specialp 13y ago

Hopefully in 30 years people will be able to read such seminal messages. Now that a lot of discussion is happening on proprietary platforms without a standard it may not be the case.

rocky1138 13y ago
I totally get what you're saying, and agree. But just in case: https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html
mjn 13y ago
It's already the case with some stuff from the '90s: there was important stuff announced and discussed on CompuServe and AOL forums that has not been publicly archived. There are some personal archives out there, but they are pretty spotty. Often the only surviving (or at least accessible) record comes in the form of occasional quotes in other venues, like an academic paper from the 1990s that included a blockquote and a citation to a now-unreachable network address.

segmondy 13y ago

Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages. How I wish this became true, it's not too late right?

chubot 13y ago
I wonder GNU Guile fills this requirement. It exists, but isn't common. I've never personally encountered it. Python or Lua seem much more prevalent as extension languages on a typical GNU/Linux system. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Guile http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_Guile
- snogglethorpe 13y ago
  FWIW, it's starting to look like the long-considered plan to move Emacs to Guile may actually become a reality: http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/162042 http://article.gmane.org/gmane.emacs.devel/162042 This has been a vague goal since the mid-'90s, and given the popularity of elisp etc, would probably be a nice boost for Guile, but the gulf between neat-idea and messy reality has always seemed so vast that I never thought it would actually happen. [I haven't used Guile since the '90s... it was a bit of a disaster back then, but from what I hear, it's improved immensely (i.e., largely been rewritten) since.]
informatimago 13y ago
It is not too late. StumpWM is written in lisp. If I had more time, I could write a manifest like RMS's about a system entirely written in Lisp. At least, I've started to gather a few files in a git repository.
fedvasu 13y ago
Try Fedora, they have guile 2.o working out of the box, guile binds C libraries quite easily, the documentation is decent (and ofcourse under GFDL). Fedora is pretty much the "GNU/Linux", RMS wanted (except some firmware, which RMS is touchy about.) Fedora has very good, tools for developers (all libre/opensource), they even have a feature slated for Fedora 20 called dev-assist, which helps setup several development environments and manage them pretty easily.

therealunreal 13y ago

Thank you, Mr. Stallman.

samatman 13y ago

A fascinating contrast to the announcment of Linux: http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announcement-from-linus-torvalds/ http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announc... RMS starts with a grandiose vision, which (at the time of writing) he hadn't even begun. He then asks for time, money, and equipment, before the end of the first paragraph. The very first thing promised, a kernel, has never been effectively delivered. Linus starts with a modest disclaimer, then asks for feedback as to what other potential users might want most. Night and day. Yet, could we have had one without the other?

sp332 13y ago
I think HURD's kernel would have had more pressure to deliver something (instead of endless academic bickering) without a serviceable Linux kernel. And GNU userspace has been pretty good!
- sanderjd 13y ago
  Or it may have still fallen into endless academic bickering with nothing delivered and the GNU userspace may have therefore failed to take off at all. We'll never know what would have happened!
polskibus 13y ago
Great contrast. Iterative vs waterfall software life cycle.
wmf 13y ago
...starts with a grandiose vision, which (at the time of writing) he hadn't even begun. He then asks for time, money, and equipment, before the end of the first paragraph. The very first thing promised ... has never been effectively delivered. That sounds like a Kickstarter pitch. RMS was ahead of his time in yet another way.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  It'd be amusing if the FSF posted it verbatim to Kickstarter (or a "Free" participant in that space, anyway) now...

eltondegeneres 13y ago

The GNU system announcement is also on gnu.org, if you're not too kean on Google Groups. <https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html> https://www.gnu.org/gnu/initial-announcement.html>

vorbote 13y ago

"GNU will be able to run Unix programs, but will not be identical to Unix. We will make all improvements that are convenient, based on our experience with other operating systems. In particular, we plan to have longer filenames, file version numbers, a crashproof file system, filename completion perhaps, terminal-independent display support, [...] Linux has, eventually, started to fulfil the promise: technologies like cgroups, dm, uevents, kdbus, alsa..., and the respective userspace: systemd, dmraid, lvm, udev, pulseaudio, show that GNU/Linux is not UNIX but better in some respects.

dllthomas 13y ago
Genetic unices have progressed as well...
- vorbote 13y ago
  I agree. And I think that FreeBSD and DragonFly stand over the rest in this respect, both have incredible technology in their guts. Obviously OpenBSD has done wonders teaching people that you can write sane, safe and audited code that works and NetBSD... Oh well, stagnant despite the really good technology that shows up in there frequently, but runs on toasters!
thelukester 13y ago
I can’t believe you seriously consider PulseAudio to be a technological improvement. Having used PA for years, I have encountered and reported numerous bugs and performance issues. After trying to debug some PA issues, I lost all respect for Poettering. The only worse sound server that I’ve encountered is AudioFlinger, and at least that has the excuse of being optimized for battery life over latency. It’s clear that systemd will break compatibility with BSD. What isn’t clear yet, is if this is truly a better system. I have nothing against change. I’m all for Wayland. I just have no confidence in Poettering's work. Most of the other improvements that you listed have been in BSD for years. Its sound subsystem OSS4 is also a much cleaner API and better performing interface than ALSA.

enupten 13y ago

I'd assumed from reading the UNIX haters' handbook, that everyone who had used a Lisp machine would automatically hate UNIX :)

gemlog 13y ago
RMS wrote: > To begin with, GNU will be a kernel Right. Not so much. That was exactly the last thing to happen as it turned out. He and everyone else in the effort worked on the tools and apps. By contrast: > I’m doing a (free) operating system (just a hobby, won’t be big and professional like gnu) > and things seem to work. This implies that I’ll get something practical within a few months Anyhow, torvalds had already put in the work on the kernel and wanted feedback. Torvalds had a kernel and no tools. RMS had tools but no kernel, so the inevitable happened and they were wed. Torvalds even chose the RMS version of a marriage license. The marriage is fruitful, but RMS is frigid and bitchy the whole time, solely over the name of the child -- even though the child has matured and gone on to a brilliant career they can both be proud of. This would also be a good time to note that Torvalds is not the one who chose the name of Linux -- usenet chose it. I have great respect for RMS and admire his courage (and self-discipline) very much, but I really wish he'd let that thing about the kid's name go. Just let it go already Richard.
- dllthomas 13y ago
  Well no, Torvalds had a kernel and all the tools GNU had created. And Linux is (entirely legitimately) the name of the kernel - the dispute[1] is over the name of systems running a bunch of GNU code on top of a Linux kernel. [1]: Elsewhere it has been contended that RMS has pushed for the name to apply to the kernel itself as well. I don't believe that was ever the case (though will certainly update my beliefs if presented with evidence) but am far more confident that it is not his current position.

mratzloff 13y ago

Now, imagine if Oracle had its way and APIs were copyrightable.

codegeek 13y ago

"Arpanet mail: RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA Usenet: ...!mit-eddie!RMS@OZ ...!mit-vax!RMS@OZ US Snail: Richard Stallman 166 Prospect St Cambridge, MA 02139" Amazing. The use of words like "US-Snail" and all. Looks far cooler and geekier than what we have now usually: xyz xyz@whateveremail.com @xyztwitterhandle

davexunit 13y ago

You can also read it here, complete with an old-school font: article.olduse.net/771@mit-eddie.UUCP This site replays old usenet posts. It was cool to wait for the announcement to pop up on net.unix-wizards. Happy 30th birthday, GNU! There is a GNU hackathon at MIT this weekend, for those that don't know already and might be interested: https://gnu.org/gnu30/ https://gnu.org/gnu30/

mozboz 13y ago

Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently: RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA :(

TallGuyShort 13y ago

For those interested in the history of open-source "UNIX" clones but who weren't in the industry at the time, I stumbled across this last night and thought it worth sharing: http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/ http://www.cs.vu.nl/~ast/brown/. Read the "original comment", "follow up", "code comparison", and "rebuttal".

dorfsmay 13y ago

Weird coincidence as how Google use Sept. 27th as their birthdate...

deleted 13y ago

[deleted]

LindaWell 13y ago

my Aunty Paige just got an awesome yellow Nissan Rogue SUV by working part time from a home computer... find more information ...................http://redir.ec/buzz55 http://redir.ec/buzz55

alkonaut 13y ago

Perhaps a novice question coming from a mostly Windows user: an OS I thought handled processes, hardware, etc. It can of course be handy to have a linker/editor/compiler shipped with it too, but why is it considered part of the OS? Is gcc/vi/emacs more a "part" of GNU/Linux than notepad is a part of windows; i.e. just a convenience? Or is linux unusable without a complete c-based tool chain? I know the term "OS" is a fuzzy one, which is probably what causes my confusion.

pizzeys 13y ago
My personal opinion, which might not line up with anyone elses: GCC is a 'part' of GNU/Linux because of the goals/aims of GNU/Linux, which is to have a freely modifiable and distributable operating system. If you put yourself in the time when this project was started, there was no free compiler, they simply didn't have one. But in order to meet the goals of the project, they would need one (you might not need one to run it, but you sure do need one to develop it), so it's therefore a very core part of the project. You don't need a c-based tool chain installed to run a GNU/Linux system or make it usable for a non-dev though, no, Ubuntu doesn't have it by default for example.