"He was a stickler in some very strange ways," says Breidbart. There is a standard technique in math which everybody does wrong. It"s an abuse of notation where you have to define a function for something and what you do is you define a function and then you prove that it"s well defined. Except the first time he did and presented it, he defined a relation and proved that it"s a function. It"s the exact same proof, but he used the correct terminology, which no one else did. That"s just the way he was."
It was in Math 55 that Richard Stallman began to cultivate a reputation for brilliance. Breidbart agrees, but Chess, whose compet.i.tive streak refused to yield, says the realization that Stallman might be the best mathematician in the cla.s.s didn"t set in until the next year. "It was during a cla.s.s on Real a.n.a.lysis, which I took with Richard the next year," says Chess, now a math professor at Hunter College. "I actually remember in a proof about complex valued measures that Richard came up with an idea that was basically a metaphor from the calculus of variations. It was the first time I ever saw somebody solve a problem in a brilliantly original way."
Chess makes no bones about it: watching Stallman"s solution unfold on the chalkboard was a devastating blow. As a kid who"d always taken pride in being the smartest mathematician the room, it was like catching a glimpse of his own mortality. Years later, as Chess slowly came to accept the professional rank of a good-but-not-great mathematician, he had Stallman"s soph.o.m.ore-year proof to look back on as a taunting early indicator.
"That"s the thing about mathematics," says Chess. "You don"t have to be a first-rank mathematician to recognize first-rate mathematical talent. I could tell I was up there, but I could also tell I wasn"t at the first rank. If Richard had chosen to be a mathematician, he would have been a first-rank mathematician."
For Stallman, success in the cla.s.sroom was balanced by the same lack of success in the social arena. Even as other members of the math mafia gathered to take on the Math 55 problem sets, Stallman preferred to work alone.
The same went for living arrangements. On the housing application for Harvard, Stallman clearly spelled out his preferences. "I said I preferred an invisible, inaudible, intangible roommate," he says. In a rare stroke of bureaucratic foresight, Harvard"s housing office accepted the request, giving Stallman a one-room single for his freshman year.
Breidbart, the only math-mafia member to share a dorm with Stallman that freshman year, says Stallman slowly but surely learned how to interact with other students.
He recalls how other dorm mates, impressed by Stallman"s logical ac.u.men, began welcoming his input whenever an intellectual debate broke out in the dining club or dorm commons.
"We had the usual bull sessions about solving the world"s problems or what would be the result of something," recalls Breidbart. "Say somebody discovers an immortality serum. What do you do? What are the political results? If you give it to everybody, the world gets overcrowded and everybody dies. If you limit it, if you say everyone who"s alive now can have it but their children can"t, then you end up with an undercla.s.s of people without it. Richard was just better able than most to see the unforeseen circ.u.mstances of any decision."
Stallman remembers the discussions vividly. "I was always in favor of immortality," he says. "I was shocked that most people regarded immortality as a bad thing. How else would we be able to see what the world is like 200 years from now?"
Although a first-rank mathematician and first-rate debater, Stallman shied away from clear-cut compet.i.tive events that might have sealed his brilliant reputation.
Near the end of freshman year at Harvard, Breidbart recalls how Stallman conspicuously ducked the Putnam exam, a prestigious test open to math students throughout the U.S. and Canada. In addition to giving students a chance to measure their knowledge in relation to their peers, the Putnam served as a chief recruiting tool for academic math departments.
According to campus legend, the top scorer automatically qualified for a graduate fellowship at any school of his choice, including Harvard.
Like Math 55, the Putnam was a brutal test of merit. A six-hour exam in two parts, it seemed explicitly designed to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Breidbart, a veteran of both the Science Honors Program and Math 55, describes it as easily the most difficult test he ever took. "Just to give you an idea of how difficult it was," says Breidbart, "the top score was a 120, and my score the first year was in the 30s. That score was still good enough to place me 101st in the country."
Surprised that Stallman, the best student in the cla.s.s, had pa.s.sed on the test, Breidbart says he and a fellow cla.s.smate cornered him in the dining common and demanded an explanation. "He said he was afraid of not doing well," Breidbart recalls.
Breidbart and the friend quickly wrote down a few problems from memory and gave them to Stallman. "He solved all of them," Breidbart says, "leading me to conclude that by not doing well, he either meant coming in second or getting something wrong."
Stallman remembers the episode a bit differently. "I remember that they did bring me the questions and it"s possible that I solved one of them, but I"m pretty sure I didn"t solve them all," he says. Nevertheless, Stallman agrees with Breidbart"s recollection that fear was the primary reason for not taking the test. Despite a demonstrated willingness to point out the intellectual weaknesses of his peers and professors in the cla.s.sroom, Stallman hated the notion of head-to-head compet.i.tion.
"It"s the same reason I never liked chess," says Stallman. "Whenever I"d play, I would become so consumed by the fear of making a single mistake that I would start making stupid mistakes very early in the game. The fear became a self-fulfilling prophecy."
Whether such fears ultimately prompted Stallman to shy away from a mathematical career is a moot issue. By the end of his freshman year at Harvard, Stallman had other interests pulling him away from the field. Computer programming, a latent fascination throughout Stallman"s high-school years, was becoming a full-fledged pa.s.sion.
Where other math students sought occasional refuge in art and history cla.s.ses, Stallman sought it in the computer-science laboratory.
For Stallman, the first taste of real computer programming at the IBM New York Scientific Center had triggered a desire to learn more. "Toward the end of my first year at Harvard school, I started to have enough courage to go visit computer labs and see what they had. I"d ask them if they had extra copies of any manuals that I could read."
Taking the manuals home, Stallman would examine machine specifications, compare them with other machines he already knew, and concoct a trial program, which he would then bring back to the lab along with the borrowed manual. Although some labs balked at the notion of a strange kid coming off the street and working on the lab machinery, most recognized competence when they saw it and let Stallman run the programs he had created.
One day, near the end of freshman year, Stallman heard about a special laboratory near MIT. The laboratory was located on the ninth floor an off-campus building in Tech Square, the newly built facility dedicated to advanced research. According to the rumors, the lab itself was dedicated to the cutting-edge science of artificial intelligence and boasted the cutting-edge machines and software programs to match.
Intrigued, Stallman decided to pay a visit.
The trip was short, about 2 miles on foot, 10 minutes by train, but as Stallman would soon find out, MIT and Harvard can feel like opposite poles of the same planet. With its maze-like tangle of interconnected office buildings, the Inst.i.tute"s campus offered an aesthetic yin to Harvard"s s.p.a.cious colonial-village yang. The same could be said for the student body, a geeky collection of ex-high school misfits known more for its predilection for pranks than its politically powerful alumni.
The yin-yang relationship extended to the AI Lab as well. Unlike Harvard computer labs, there was no grad-student gatekeeper, no clipboard waiting list for terminal access, no explicit atmosphere of "look but don"t touch." Instead, Stallman found only a collection of open terminals and robotic arms, presumably the artifacts of some A.I. experiment.
Although the rumors said anybody could sit down at the terminals, Stallman decided to stick with the original plan. When he encountered a lab employee, he asked if the lab had any spare manuals it could loan to an inquisitive student. "They had some, but a lot of things weren"t doc.u.mented," Stallman recalls. "They were hackers after all."
Stallman left with something even better than a manual: a job. Although he doesn"t remember what the first project was, he does remember coming back to the AI Lab the next week, grabbing an open terminal and writing software code.
Looking back, Stallman sees nothing unusual in the AI Lab"s willingness to accept an unproven outsider at first glance. "That"s the way it was back then," he says. "That"s the way it still is now. I"ll hire somebody when I meet him if I see he"s good. Why wait?
Stuffy people who insist on putting bureaucracy into everything really miss the point. If a person is good, he shouldn"t have to go through a long, detailed hiring process; he should be sitting at a computer writing code."
To get a taste of "bureaucratic and stuffy," Stallman need only visit the computer labs at Harvard. There, access to the terminals was doled out according to academic rank. As an undergrad, Stallman usually had to sign up or wait until midnight, about the time most professors and grad students finished their daily work a.s.signments. The waiting wasn"t difficult, but it was frustrating. Waiting for a public terminal, knowing all the while that a half dozen equally usable machines were sitting idle inside professors" locked offices, seemed the height of illogic. Although Stallman paid the occasional visit to the Harvard computer labs, he preferred the more egalitarian policies of the AI Lab.
"It was a breath of fresh air," he says. "At the AI Lab, people seemed more concerned about work than status."
Stallman quickly learned that the AI Lab"s first-come, first-served policy owed much to the efforts of a vigilant few. Many were holdovers from the days of Project MAC, the Department of Defense-funded research program that had given birth to the first time-share operating systems. A few were already legends in the computing world. There was Richard Greenblatt, the lab"s in-house Lisp expert and author of MacHack, the computer chess program that had once humbled A.I.
critic Hubert Dreyfus. There was Gerald Sussman, original author of the robotic block-stacking program HACKER. And there was Bill Gosper, the in-house math whiz already in the midst of an 18-month hacking bender triggered by the philosophical implications of the computer game LIFE.See Steven Levy, Hackers (Penguin USA [paperback], 1984): 144. Levy devotes about five pages to describing Gosper"s fascination with LIFE, a math-based software game first created by British mathematician John Conway. I heartily recommend this book as a supplement, perhaps even a prerequisite, to this one.
Members of the tight-knit group called themselves "
hackers." Over time, they extended the "hacker"
description to Stallman as well. In the process of doing so, they inculcated Stallman in the ethical traditions of the "hacker ethic ." To be a hacker meant more than just writing programs, Stallman learned. It meant writing the best possible programs. It meant sitting at a terminal for 36 hours straight if that"s what it took to write the best possible programs. Most importantly, it meant having access to the best possible machines and the most useful information at all times. Hackers spoke openly about changing the world through software, and Stallman learned the instinctual hacker disdain for any obstacle that prevented a hacker from fulfilling this n.o.ble cause.
Chief among these obstacles were poor software, academic bureaucracy, and selfish behavior.
Stallman also learned the lore, stories of how hackers, when presented with an obstacle, had circ.u.mvented it in creative ways. Stallman learned about " lock hacking,"
the art of breaking into professors" offices to "liberate" sequestered terminals. Unlike their pampered Harvard counterparts, MIT faculty members knew better than to treat the AI Lab"s terminal as private property. If a faculty member made the mistake of locking away a terminal for the night, hackers were quick to correct the error. Hackers were equally quick to send a message if the mistake repeated itself. "I was actually shown a cart with a heavy cylinder of metal on it that had been used to break down the door of one professor"s office,"Gerald Sussman, an MIT faculty member and hacker whose work at the AI Lab predates Stallman"s, disputes this memory. According to Sussman, the hackers never broke any doors to retrieve terminals.
Stallman says.
Such methods, while lacking in subtlety, served a purpose. Although professors and administrators outnumbered hackers two-to-one inside the AI Lab, the hacker ethic prevailed. Indeed, by the time of Stallman"s arrival at the AI Lab, hackers and the AI Lab administration had coevolved into something of a symbiotic relationship. In exchange for fixing the machines and keeping the software up and running, hackers earned the right to work on favorite pet projects. Often, the pet projects revolved around improving the machines and software programs even further. Like teenage hot-rodders, most hackers viewed tinkering with machines as its own form of entertainment.
Nowhere was this tinkering impulse better reflected than in the operating system that powered the lab"s central PDP-6 mini-computer. Dubbed ITS, short for the Incompatible Time Sharing system, the operating system incorporated the hacking ethic into its very design.
Hackers had built it as a protest to Project MAC"s original operating system, the Compatible Time Sharing System, CTSS, and named it accordingly. At the time, hackers felt the CTSS design too restrictive, limiting programmers" power to modify and improve the program"s own internal architecture if needed. According to one legend pa.s.sed down by hackers, the decision to build ITS had political overtones as well. Unlike CTSS, which had been designed for the IBM 7094, ITS was built specifically for the PDP-6. In letting hackers write the systems themselves, AI Lab administrators guaranteed that only hackers would feel comfortable using the PDP-6. In the feudal world of academic research, the gambit worked. Although the PDP-6 was co-owned in conjunction with other departments, A.I.
researchers soon had it to themselves.
ITS boasted features most commercial operating systems wouldn"t offer for years, features such as mult.i.tasking, debugging, and full-screen editing capability. Using it and the PDP-6 as a foundation, the Lab had been able to declare independence from Project MAC shortly before Stallman"s arrival.I apologize for the whirlwind summary of ITS" genesis, an operating system many hackers still regard as the epitome of the hacker ethos. For more information on the program"s political significance, see Simson Garfinkel, Architects of the Information Society: Thirty-Five Years of the Laboratory for Computer Science at MIT (MIT Press, 1999).
As an apprentice hacker, Stallman quickly became enamored with ITS. Although forbidding to most newcomers, the program contained many built-in features that provided a lesson in software development to hacker apprentices such as himself.
"ITS had a very elegant internal mechanism for one program to examine another," says Stallman, recalling the program. "You could examine all sorts of status about another program in a very clean, well-specified way."
Using this feature, Stallman was able to watch how programs written by hackers processed instructions as they ran. Another favorite feature would allow the monitoring program to freeze the monitored program"s job between instructions. In other operating systems, such a command would have resulted in half-computed gibberish or an automatic systems crash. In ITS, it provided yet another way to monitor the step-by-step performance.
"If you said, "Stop the job," it would always be stopped in user mode. It would be stopped between two user-mode instructions, and everything about the job would be consistent for that point," Stallman says. "If you said, "Resume the job," it would continue properly.
Not only that, but if you were to change the status of the job and then change it back, everything would be consistent. There was no hidden status anywhere."
By the end of 1970, hacking at the AI Lab had become a regular part of Stallman"s weekly schedule. From Monday to Thursday, Stallman devoted his waking hours to his Harvard cla.s.ses. As soon as Friday afternoon arrived, however, he was on the T, heading down to MIT for the weekend. Stallman usually timed his arrival to coincide with the ritual food run. Joining five or six other hackers in their nightly quest for Chinese food, he would jump inside a beat-up car and head across the Harvard Bridge into nearby Boston. For the next two hours, he and his hacker colleagues would discuss everything from ITS to the internal logic of the Chinese language and pictograph system. Following dinner, the group would return to MIT and hack code until dawn.
For the geeky outcast who rarely a.s.sociated with his high-school peers, it was a heady experience, suddenly hanging out with people who shared the same predilection for computers, science fiction, and Chinese food. "I remember many sunrises seen from a car coming back from Chinatown," Stallman would recall nostalgically, 15 years after the fact in a speech at the Swedish Royal Technical Inst.i.tute. "It was actually a very beautiful thing to see a sunrise, "cause that"s such a calm time of day. It"s a wonderful time of day to get ready to go to bed. It"s so nice to walk home with the light just brightening and the birds starting to chirp; you can get a real feeling of gentle satisfaction, of tranquility about the work that you have done that night."See Richard Stallman, "RMS lecture at KTH (Sweden),"
(October 30, 1986).
The more Stallman hung out with the hackers, the more he adopted the hacker worldview. Already committed to the notion of personal liberty, Stallman began to infuse his actions with a sense of communal responsibility. When others violated the communal code, Stallman was quick to speak out. Within a year of his first visit, Stallman was the one breaking into locked offices, trying to recover the sequestered terminals that belonged to the lab community as a whole. In true hacker fashion, Stallman also sought to make his own personal contribution to the art of lock hacking. One of the most artful door-opening tricks, commonly attributed to Greenblatt, involved bending a stiff wire into a cane and attaching a loop of tape to the long end. Sliding the wire under the door, a hacker could twist and rotate the wire so that the long end touched the door k.n.o.b. Provided the adhesive on the tape held, a hacker could open the doork.n.o.b with a few sharp twists.
When Stallman tried the trick, he found it good but wanting in a few places. Getting the tape to stick wasn"t always easy, and twisting the wire in a way that turned the doork.n.o.b was similarly difficult. Stallman remembered that the hallway ceiling possessed tiles that could be slid away. Some hackers, in fact, had used the false ceiling as a way to get around locked doors, an approach that generally covered the perpetrator in fibergla.s.s but got the job done.
Stallman considered an alternative approach. What if, instead of slipping a wire under the door, a hacker slid away one of the panels and stood over the door jamb?