
New UNIX implementation (1983) - liotier
https://groups.google.com/forum/#!msg/net.unix-wizards/8twfRPM79u0/1xlglzrWrU0J
======
samatman
A fascinating contrast to the announcment of Linux:

[http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-
announc...](http://www.thelinuxdaily.com/2010/04/the-first-linux-announcement-
from-linus-torvalds/)

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?

~~~
ChuckMcM
I find it fascinating that RMS made his pronouncement in '83 and Linus in '91
(8 years later). At the time (and I was at Sun at that time) 'GNU' was still
pretty much just a concept, all of the effort from 1983 -> 1991 was in C
(gcc), binutils, and emacs. USL was on the verge of suing BSDi for their BSD
project (AT&T had been lobbing threats at the GNU effort for years, especially
their use of the word 'UNIX' in the description of their acronym)

Post lawsuit RMS wrote his manifesto and the GPL was born, and the various BSD
flavors of UNIX were the only UNIX kernels that had had their software
provenance litigated.

Into that Linus wrote his entirely new kernel which was 'unix like' but not
UNIX at all on the inside (generally user land felt like UNIX because MINIX
felt like UNIX).

And because Linux had a pretty complete history from birth to present (making
tracing software ownership possible) RMS annexed it as the GNU "kernel" trying
to get everyone to call it GNU/Linux for a while.

[1]
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/USL_v._BSDi)

~~~
LukeShu
_RMS annexed it as the GNU "kernel" trying to get everyone to call it
GNU/Linux for a while._

As dllthomas said, RMS never wanted the kernel to be called "GNU/Linux", he
wanted (wants) the Linux kernel with the GNU userland to be called
"GNU/Linux".

I see that you an link to the Wikipedia page on the naming controversy.
"Operating system", at least as RMS uses it, doesn't refer to the kernel, it
refers to the kernel+userland.

~~~
ChuckMcM
And to dllthomas' point, the controversy is the 'it'. Naming things is a pain,
and naming computer things is a bigger pain. That was the root of the
controversy.

Today most people who use a Linux distribution on their machine will say they
run Linux or "distroname" (like Ubuntu or CentOS) on their machine. They don't
say they run Gnome 2/Linux Kernel 3.x/gcc 4/gnu utils 2.8. By RMS' reasoning
(and he is very precise in this) the "Operating System" is not "Linux" it is
"GNU/Linux". They even added a field for it in uname(1) (-o).

The "Operating System" is a combination of the kernel, the editors, and user
tools, and the compilers. Go back and read his original announcement, this is
his definition:

 _" To begin with, GNU will be a kernel plus all the utilities needed to write
and run C programs: editor, shell, C compiler, linker, assembler, and a few
other things. After this we will add a text formatter, a YACC, an Empire game,
a spreadsheet, and hundreds of other things. We hope to supply, eventually,
everything useful that normally comes with a Unix system, and anything else
useful, including on-line and hardcopy documentation."_

By that original definition, we shouldn't even bother calling it GNU/Linux
should we? Its just GNU. I expect taking that position though would be quite
unpopular.

As the Wikipedia page alludes to, there were at least two camps at the time.
Many, like myself who 'grew up' on the UNIX side of the house, the Naming
Hierarchy was 'kernel->[userland]->window system' So it was SunOS->SunTools or
SunOS->X/News. If you called something a "UNIX" system it meant that the
_kernel_ was based on the design architecture of Thompon, Ritchey, et al from
Bell Labs. SunOS, IRIX, SystemV, and Unicos were all "UNIX" systems even
though their userland code and window systems (if they had one) varied. Even
in RMS' original statement of purpose, the first component of GNU was a
_kernel_ , and some other bits.

So to someone with the same background as I've had you could call it Linux/GNU
(hierarchy preserved) or "Ubuntu" based on Linux with GNU tools. But Linux as
the kernel architecture is at the top of the naming chain, not GNU.

For folks who came up from the DOS/PC side of things the 'window system' was
the primary naming tool (in this case Windows). It was PC-DOS/Windows for a
while but Microsoft decided to go all out and make "Windows" the
brand/trademark they hung their hat on, and we got Windows/DOS, Windows/NT,
Windows 98, Windows XP, Windows Vista, Etc.

As dllthomas illustrates, the interpretation of the 'it' part rooted the
disagreement, and which side of the disagreement one resonated with seemed
strongly correlated with ones early exposure to naming conventions.

My belief is that the _emotion_ in the discussion came from egos, or people
feeling person A or person B's contributions or impact were over or under
valued. We can see some of that in the comments here where people emotionally
jump to a conclusion that I'm down on RMS (I'm not), or even partisan in this
debate (I'm not that either). There is ample documentation that Linus' goal
with Linux was to write a new OS from scratch kind of like (but better than
:-) MINIX. And there is ample documentation that RMS' goal was to create an
operating environment that was unencumbered by onerous restrictions. It was
fortuitous the Linus' work was so successful, and it was fortuitous that Linus
could leverage the work done in the preceding 9 years in making tools
available for him to use.

But it was also clear that Linus wasn't specifically supporting the GNU
project by writing Linux (although he subscribed to the philosophy). When RMS
started claiming as part of the project it set up this little tempest. Perhaps
the term 'annex' is too emotionally charged to be used for that action.

~~~
dllthomas
FWIW, I frequently refer to the system I run as "Linux" \- with the fact that
there's a sizable amount of GNU code pretty much assumed by the fact that I'm
running a Linux kernel and it's a server or desktop and not an embedded device
or something. I just think the case for "GNU/Linux" is better than it is
frequently made out to be, and (as mentioned) disagreed about Stallman's
position on the issue.

------
randomknowledge
"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
> 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).

------
fsck--off

      "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....](http://web.archive.org/web/20110719154038/http://danweinreb.org/blog/rebuttal-
to-stallmans-story-about-the-formation-of-symbolics-and-lmi)

~~~
ecopoesis
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.

~~~
ajross
To be fair: "text editors" really hadn't been invented "long before emacs". At
the time (the early 1970's) editing text was a subject of much research and
experimentation. Differing paradigms were being tried on new and exciting
hardware (the glass tty). Screen editors, as they came to be known, were a
brand new curiosity -- they were equally disruptive (if not more so) as the
"web application" or "capacitive touchscreen interface" would be decades
later.

And emacs was one of the very first screen editors. It invented lots of the
stuff that would later seem "obvious".

So no: I think it's entirely appropriate to say that emacs was "invented" in
the same way the browser was.

~~~
tesseractive
It's before my time, but my impression was that both TECO and EMACS originated
as teletype line editors (as with ed and ex, the direct predecessors to vi),
and were only later adapted to fancy new screen terminals. Am I mistaken?

~~~
ajross
I likewise was never a user. But the EMACS package of TECO macros was intended
specifically to enable screen editting on terminals as I understand it (though
surely there was overlap). Basically EMACS:TECO as vi:ex.

------
davexunit
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/)

------
specialp
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.

~~~
mjn
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
Both C and Lisp will be available as system programming languages.

How I wish this became true, it's not too late right?

~~~
chubot
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
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.]

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

~~~
lectrick
I wouldn't be surprised if he invented snail-mail

Dude was proverbially "leet as fuck" back in that day.

~~~
angersock
6|\||_| h4x0r5

------
dllthomas
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
Or this:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_(computer_game)](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Classic_Empire_\(computer_game\))

~~~
lectrick
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)

------
crncosta
Thanks Stallman for never give up of his dreams.

------
eltondegeneres
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>)

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

------
vorbote
"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
Genetic unices have progressed as well...

~~~
vorbote
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!

------
therealunreal
Thank you, Mr. Stallman.

------
ctdonath
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.

~~~
jdreaver
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)

~~~
sweettea
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
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?

~~~
asdasf
The linux of 1998 is still light years ahead of the hurd of today. That was
before all those IBM and intel investments.

~~~
alayne
Light years ahead in what sense? I think it's an anachronism from a
theoretical standpoint. I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from
Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a
monolithic 1970s design.

~~~
dragonwriter
> Light years ahead in what sense?

Usability for pretty much any of the purposes for which one uses a computer
operating system other than exploring theoretical ideas about how to architect
a computer operating system.

> I'd like to see more people run with newer ideas from Plan 9 / Inferno /
> Hurd / all the other operating systems that aren't a monolithic 1970s
> design.

So would I. That doesn't make any Hurd more ready for any other use _other
than_ exploring newer OS ideas that Linux is.

Or even the most ready for such uses (or even the exploring OS architecture
use) of the "Plan 9 / Inferno / Hurd" set.

------
TallGuyShort
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".

------
codegeek
"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

------
mozboz
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:

    
    
         RMS@MIT-MC.ARPA
    

:(

------
alkonaut
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
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.

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

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

~~~
gemlog
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
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.

