Please create an account to participate in the Slashdot moderation system

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Perl Programming

Interview with Larry Wall 34

Posted by michael from the words-from-the-master dept.
Alfred Bacon writes "There will be an interview with Larry Wall on The Paula Gordon Show available on Saturday at 3:00 pm EST. It is an hour long in RealAudo format broken up into 10 minute segments. Mr. Wall will be discussing Perl, Free Software and the Open Source movement. It should be worth listening to."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Interview with Larry Wall More

Interview with Larry Wall

Comments Filter:
  • I was enjoying the rather banal chat of the program until, at the very end, the host jumped completely off the page. She pulled a lame deconstuctionist trick out of her bag and Wall just bought it...hook, line, and sinker. Linux "has light in it" therefore, it's analogous to Lucifer. So, we can say, axiomatically, Gnu/Linux is the instrumentality of evil. Open source MUST mean that "evil" hackers will get better and easier mischeif. Futhermore, this Luciferian Gnu/Linux "movement" (if such a thing exists) is, by definition, repugnant to GOD. Who, then, is GOD (outside of Texas)? I'm not really bashing the host for her dunder-headed drivel. I think everyone can see what she's all about. I just think Wall should have pulled her up short on the absurdity of her analogy. Of course, I could be wrong.
  • I've listened to a bit of it, she sounds a bit irritating and not quite knowing what she is discussing. But that's just my opinion.
    -----
  • Please list one (just one) Open Source Software program that is not also a Free Software program.

    Visit http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/li cen se-list.html [gnu.org] for a list of licenses that are "Open Source" licenses but not Free Software (such as Sun's Community license, Apple's APSL, etc).
  • First: the FSF isn't involved with Open Source.

    So, you're saying that gcc, emacs, GNOME and all the other FSF software is not Open Source! Wow! You'd better let RMS know that people are treating it as Open Source by copying, modifying and distributing it.

    There may be two different communities (the dogs versus the canines), but the software is the SAME! No difference. Every OS program is also FS, and vice versa.
  • If you don't know GNU from Unix then you'll get a nice introduction. This interview obviously isn't for the slashdot set. It is definately for the Director's, Manager's, and other people who are intrested in matters Open Source or PERL but just don't know a register increment from the bit-bucket.

    So from that perspective, this is a nice little piece... and it's news for nerds in that the interview is good for use as evangalism... pass the link around to those whom you feel are ready for the good-news brothers and sisters!

    - // Zarf //
  • Please list one (just one) Open Source Software program that is not also a Free Software program. It is possible, I'll admit, but it would take a mighty good lawyer to follow the OSD while violating the Free Software definition.

    Huh?! The examples are too numerous to mention, starting with Apache, released under the BSD License, and Perl, released under the artistic license. The main difference between these licenses and the GPL, which defines Free Software are:

    under the GPL, you have to make any modifications to the source for a program also freely available.
    Under most of the licenses which fall under the OSD, you are free to do whatever you want with the source.

    I have seen numerous proprietary extensions to Apache (Raven SSL Server, by Covalent is one) where source is not available. And propietary Perl programs, where the code is in Perl, but you're not allowed to use it, unless you have paid a very hefty license fee. The GPL is not some vaguely worded manifesto, as was previously stated in this thread, bit a very precisely stated document, also drawn up by a team of lawyers (say what you will about RMS, he does nothing half-assed). Let me summarize the Free Software License (GPL) and one of the many licenses that full under the OSD.

    GPL: The program, including the source is freely available. You may only modify the source code if you then make the modified source code freely available.

    BSD: The program, including the source is freely available. You may modify the program in and any way, and are free to do what you wish with the modified source code.

    You see, in a way, the OSD is much more free (yes, as in speech), because the OSD doesn't make constraints on what you can do, if you decide to modify a program. However, the GPL is IMO way better, because it guarantees that any improvements or modification to the source code, will also be free.

  • Hmmm, I seem to remember a pasage where Jesus says he's light bearer. But the lightbearer was Lucifer. Therefore Jesus is Lucifer.

    Good thing I don't take the bible too seriously.
  • Open source/gpl'd/etc. software is about the community that makes it happen, not a few individuals. Yes, linus has had alot to do with the linux kernel, but so do a significant number of other people who have, and are, working on it right now. It's not that linus isn't important to the community; it's that he's no more important than dozens, if not hundereds, of other people working on the same project. cults of personality help noone - the talking heads spend too much time doing interviews and become either convinced of their own status as gods, or become disenchanted with the media, and the work that led them to their prominance; people in the community go from having a very personal sense of signficance, and duty, to the project(s) they're working on to being disconnected trainspotters who produce code for someone else, not for the community... I think. But I'm rambling, and this post is far too long.
  • Neither Sun's Community license nor the APSL are Open Source licenses. Try again.

    You can find a list of approved Open Source licenses at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/ [opensource.org]
  • I'm simply amazed that I'm reading this! The GPL is not the only Free Software license!!!!!!!

    Both the Apache and BSD licenses are Free Software and certified as such by the Grand Guru of GNU himself. Please go peruse the GNU and FSF pages at your leisure and round out your otherwise fine education.
  • can you give one rms quote where he says, or even implies, that people should write free software for any reason other than that they want to? Put another way, does rms ever say or imply that people must write free software (rather than saying that people should write free software)?
  • Am I the only one wondering why I have to download audio clips instead of downloading a text page with the transcript of the interview. I don't see the appeal of audio.

    If the sound quality is poor, audio may be hard to understand. Audio is also much bigger than text. I can read faster than someone can talk, and I can skim the text for interesting bits. It's also easier to understand something that's written down, especially if it's not your first language.

  • I think you misunderstood. She went reaching for the etymology of 'linux' without noticing that Linus and UNIX smashed together looks like... whatever. Then she free-associated Lucifer as the biblical bearer of light as a segue into a question about the darker possibilities of Open Source.

    Larry Wall gracefully picked up on the not-stupid parts of her questions (such as what does Open Source guard against within it's own movement) and pointed out that Open Source as he sees it promotes a diversity of ideas, such that Open Source doesn't snuff out "incipient cultures".

    Great Stuff. Larry Wall is the f'in man.

  • Larry Wall speaks so carefully and so directly in the interview that I found it entertaining just to listen to Wall have a conversation with two people whom are basically Open Source ignorant.

    Several times he is asked to respond to strange and/or cliched metaphors about Open Source (primitive tribe, priesthood) and himself (Prometheus, "man behind the curtain", Wizard) that put him at a loss for words -- as if they're tempting him into admitting "Yes! okay I'm just a cult leader and these are my dutiful minions" -- and he points out that what they think is counterintuitive (why give stuff away free? why let people read your code? how is there convergence in what seems to be a committee... aren't committees prone to dissent?) maybe isn't so counterintuitive...

    And the interviewers start to understand the philosophical differences between closed source and open source. They really picked up on the significance of asking "Why not?". He really blows their minds with some deep thoughts about the importance of sharing software ideas.

    I think that the general message they get is that Open Source isn't a business model, it's at least an ethic, and might even be a religion.

    So, ./ers, if your Open Source faith is waning, or you're looking for someone to convince you that Open Source is in fact the path of the righteous, then hear the preaching of the Reverend Larry Wall of the Church of Open Source... and be amazed.

  • Larry FLYNT if thats the one you two are talking about is, is the guy who created the adult magazine "Hustler".(An alternative to Playboy and so on) There's also a movie about him -find the info at ; http://us.imdb.com/Details?0117318

  • I, for one, have sent mail a few time to the /. team suggesting an interview with M. Wall. This man is incredible in interview : look at http://www2.linuxjourna l.c om/lj-issues/issue61/3394.html [linuxjournal.com] for a good example.

  • Well i'll be tuned in, won't everyone???
  • Oh yeah it's... Larry... Wall... great.. I'll stay tuned.
  • Damn, for a minute there, I thought it read an INTERVIEW WITH LARRY FLYNN.

    Now that would bring in some advertising $$

    krystal_blade

  • if larry speeks half as well as he did at the Atlanta Linux Showcase this year, this is well worth listening to.

    -andy
  • Ah, megs of realaudio just for this:

    "hello, this is larry wall, and i pronounce perl, perl"
  • I saw the title and got my hopes up, but why not? Of all the interesting people slashdot has interviewed, why not do an interview with Mr. Wall? Or has it already been done? I don't remember one. You'd think he'd be willing with slashdot what it is: the only question is whether or not he would have the time. Think about the questions you could ask. Did the creation of perl involve alcohol? What does he think of obfuscated perl contests and slashcode?

  • Hold on... (Score:1)

    by Anonymous Coward
    ...sing a song!

    Sung to: California Uberalles by the "Dead Kennedys"

    I am the Zealot RMS
    My hair is long I am a mess.
    I am aiming for the EU next...

    Cathedral power will soon go away
    I will be Fuhrer one day
    I will command all of you
    Your kids will install HURD in school

    R-M-S Uber alles
    R-M-S Uber alles
    Uber alles Open Software
    Uber alles Open Software

    OSS fascists will control you
    Hundred percent G-N-U
    You will code for the master race
    And alway wear the happy face

    Close your eyes, can't happen here
    Big Bro' on white horse is near
    The hippies won't come back you say
    Code for Free or you will pay

    R-M-S Uber alles
    R-M-S Uber alles
    Uber alles Open Software
    Uber alles Open Software

    Now it is 2004
    Knock knock at your front door
    It's the slash-bot secret police
    They have come for your uncool niece

    Come quietly to the camp
    You'd look nice as a drawstring lamp
    Don't you worry, it's only a shower
    For your code here's a pretty flower

    Die on another post by Katz
    Slashdot is filled with rats
    You will croak, you little pests
    When you mess with R-M-S

    R-M-S Uber alles
    Uber alles Open Software.

  • What is to stop the community losing sight of it's goals...

    What goals are those? Everyone has their own set of goals, and the only one I can find universal to the Free Source community is "share your individual creations." There's no way that statistics and popularity contests can affect this goal.

    The community does not equate to the FSF. Not everyone is an ideologue. Larry Wall has consistantly represented a large portion of the community, and there's no reason to complain about him giving an interview just because he won't be talking about changing the world through licensing.

  • Mass Media perverts the message, IMHO. (Score:4)

    by Kiss the Blade ( 238661 ) on Saturday November 25, 2000 @09:20AM (#602113) Journal
    I am as enthusiastic about Open Source Software as the next guy on this site, but the increasingly publicity-orientated motives of the community worries me intensely.

    What is to stop the community losing sight of it's goals when it becomes obsessed with user statistics & popularity contests? The community should be about word-of-mouth propogation, not mass media hype. The message that open source software from the FSF sends out is only achieved through direct use, not by glitzy advertising campaigns & talking heads.

    The community approach has worked very well so far, why shouldn't work in the future?

    KTB:Lover, Poet, Artiste, Aesthete, Programmer.

  • Every OS program is also FS, and vice versa. That is so absolutely wrong I don't know where to start... but I guess I'll start by paraphrasing RMS: "Please don't call me a member of the Open Source movement." Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) includes just about any software to which the source is available, regardless on the constraints which are placed on the use of that source once obtained. For example, many "Open Source" licenses allow corporate sponsors special rights, including the ability to close the code, use code in closed source products, and other such things. In contrast, Free Software (as defined by RMS and co.) is software which is (generally speaking) very liberally licensed- virtually no constraints can be placed on anyone who gets the source, except that they must also share the source. These are radically different- Open Source does include Free Software, but the reverse is very clearly not true (as RMS is always reminding everyone.) Please don't spread that misconception.
    ~luge
  • Comment removed based on user account deletion
  • ...is this Paula person as annoying to listen to as Katz is to read?
    --

  • To actually start a comment out by fulfilling godwin's law [uiuc.edu], and hence proving yourself wrong before you made your point, is so increadibly dumb that, I am hoping, that it is the reason you got mod'ed up to (3), was which means we need a new catagory:- (Score 5: Hey come look at this idiot!)

  • First: the FSF isn't involved with Open Source. Please, please, please be careful about confusing that with Free Software. Most of the people on both sides of the naming issue tend to be very prickly about it.

    And how does an interview with Larry Wall, who's a cool guy, turn into publicity? Chances are, someone will here the interview, be interested, and start looking into things in more depth. That's basically what happened to me, a couple of years back. ^_^


    -RickHunter
  • I don't think a single one of them has paid attention to the definition when talking about Open Sourcing their products. That's one of the (many) problems RMS and the FSF have with the term and movement.

    Any word can be abused. The number of proprietary software products that label themselves as "free" is staggering. It's a very specious argument to disparage "open source" as a term open to abuse when the alternative is a term much more abused.
  • nope your not the only one. the dk really helped me during the "formative years", and i still have alot of respect for jello.

    jon katz would do well to listen to the dead kennedys. i feel like jello really connected with me. i think katz cares, but i also think he is really disconnected from the culture he is trying to represent.

    use LaTeX? want an online reference manager that
  • paraphrasing RMS: "Please don't call me a member of the Open Source movement."

    I didn't call him a "member". The Free Software Movement(tm) is distinct from all other software movements, but the movement IS NOT the software.

    Open Source software (as defined by the OSI) includes just about any software to which the source is available

    Please read the OSD. Many restrictions are placed on the software licensing before it can be acknowleged "Open Source". The OSD is the same as the Free Software definition of the FSF, only worded legally and precisely, instead of a vague and changing series of essays.

    For example, many "Open Source" licenses allow corporate sponsors special rights, including the ability to close the code

    Licenses don't do this, copyright law does. Any time he would want to (brain tumor for example), RMS as the copyright holder could release a version of emacs under a proprietary license. But he couldn't affect any existing copies of emacs, nor could ANY Open Source license affect any existing copies of OSS software.

    no constraints can be placed on anyone who gets the source, except that they must also share the source.

    You're describing copyleft, not free software. Many software licenses fully acknowledged by RMS to be Free Software licenses do not compel the user to share the source code. Examples include BSD and MIT licenses. Notably missing in RMS's definition of Free Software is the requirement that it be copylefted under a GNU license. In fact, there is only ONE Open Source license that RMS does not acknowledge as free (Artistic), but that is only because the license is vague, not because it is restrictive.

    If your argument is that Copyleft is not the same as Open Source, then I will fully agree. Ditto for any assertions that the Copyleft Movement(tm) is not the same as the Open Source movement. But by the same token, Copyleft is not the same as Free Software!

    These are radically different- Open Source does include Free Software, but the reverse is very clearly not true

    Please list one (just one) Open Source Software program that is not also a Free Software program. It is possible, I'll admit, but it would take a mighty good lawyer to follow the OSD while violating the Free Software definition.

Slashdot Top Deals

The explanation requiring the fewest assumptions is the most likely to be correct. -- William of Occam

Close