>Stallman wanted to create GNU from the outside in (editors, then tools, then compilers, then the kernel) whereas Torvalds went inside-out?
A new editor or a new command-line tool was immediately useful to a user of a proprietary Unix.
In contrast, a new kernel would not have been useful to the user of a proprietary application or a proprietary command-line tool unless perhaps pains were taken to give the new kernel binary compatibility with proprietary kernels -- and even then there would have been worries about whether the user had the legal right to run the proprietary tool on the new kernel.
In summary, the order in which Stallman chose to build the pieces was the order that grew the user base the fastest, which in turn grew contributions from developers the fastest, in a virtuous cycle.
Grew the user base of portions of the GNU system the fastest, yes, and was arguably a correct choice for his aims. A number of things contributed to a faster rise of use of Linux compared to Hurd - which then saw the same virtuous cycle.
A new editor or a new command-line tool was immediately useful to a user of a proprietary Unix.
In contrast, a new kernel would not have been useful to the user of a proprietary application or a proprietary command-line tool unless perhaps pains were taken to give the new kernel binary compatibility with proprietary kernels -- and even then there would have been worries about whether the user had the legal right to run the proprietary tool on the new kernel.
In summary, the order in which Stallman chose to build the pieces was the order that grew the user base the fastest, which in turn grew contributions from developers the fastest, in a virtuous cycle.