I did not say that the choice of a micro-kernel did not raise hard problems
(that could not be foreseen when the architecture was chose). I say the
effort on the HURD would not have been reduced if there were no free software
alternative. In fact, the HURD would not have even started if Linux were
already available (under a free software license) when the HURD project
started. It is all written there:
If we did face the question that people ask---if Linux were already
available, and we were considering whether to start writing another
kernel---we would not do it. Instead we would choose another project,
something to do a job that no existing free software can do.
Stallman is an exceptional programmer. No doubt about that. Notice however
that he stated numerous times that he thinks he is not as good as he used to
be. He thinks that, today, he is much more useful as a speaker rather as a
programmer. I agree with him. I do not think any other free software advocate
come even close to him when it comes to making users realize they deserve
freedoms. And, again, that is the main problem the free software movement is
facing. Not an insufficient amount of technical work.
Notice that, if rms would be still programming, he would hack on Emacs. Like
he used to do before quitting. Since Linux exists, rms does not consider the
HURD as a high-priority project. He would certainly not work on it. The quote
above actually is from rms himself. If you want a more recent one, here it
is:
What I think about the HURD is that finishing it is not crucial.
When we started the HURD, it was for a simple reason. The GNU system needed a
kernel, and no usable free kernel existed. We set out to write one.
That problem does not exist today. Linux works ok as a kernel.
