"I think operating systems work best if they're free and open. Particular applications are more likely to be proprietary"
About this Quote
Larry Wall, creator of Perl, draws a line between the commons of computing and the marketplace that thrives atop it. The operating system is civic infrastructure: roads, water, and power for software. When that foundation is free and open, everyone can inspect it, fix it, port it, and trust it. Developers are not locked into opaque APIs or business whims, hardware makers can contribute drivers, and institutions can maintain systems for decades without vendor permission. The result is sturdier security through transparency, long-term portability, and broader interoperability. Think of Unix and its descendants, Linux and the BSDs, and how much of the internet runs on open kernels and protocols. Even commercial platforms borrow this strength; macOS builds on Darwin, and Android rides a Linux kernel while distributing proprietary layers on top.
At the same time, Wall is pragmatic about economic incentives. Applications sit closer to user needs and differentiation. They win or lose on polish, domain expertise, design, support, and integration with business workflows. That is where proprietary models often make sense, because niche markets and high-touch features need funding and accountability. A free operating system de-risks the base and widens the audience; proprietary applications can then compete on value where customers are willing to pay. History bears out this hybrid: open platforms with thriving proprietary app ecosystems, and proprietary platforms that still depend on open standards underneath.
The statement is not dogma but architecture. Keep the foundation in the commons to maximize freedom, auditability, and innovation; allow the upper layers to host a mix of open and closed value. It echoes a classic strategy in tech economics: commoditize the complements so the core of shared dependency stays healthy, while letting creators charge for specialized solutions. That balance aligns with Wall’s broader ethos of practicality and plurality. An open base invites many paths forward; proprietary applications give builders reasons to invest in better ones.
At the same time, Wall is pragmatic about economic incentives. Applications sit closer to user needs and differentiation. They win or lose on polish, domain expertise, design, support, and integration with business workflows. That is where proprietary models often make sense, because niche markets and high-touch features need funding and accountability. A free operating system de-risks the base and widens the audience; proprietary applications can then compete on value where customers are willing to pay. History bears out this hybrid: open platforms with thriving proprietary app ecosystems, and proprietary platforms that still depend on open standards underneath.
The statement is not dogma but architecture. Keep the foundation in the commons to maximize freedom, auditability, and innovation; allow the upper layers to host a mix of open and closed value. It echoes a classic strategy in tech economics: commoditize the complements so the core of shared dependency stays healthy, while letting creators charge for specialized solutions. That balance aligns with Wall’s broader ethos of practicality and plurality. An open base invites many paths forward; proprietary applications give builders reasons to invest in better ones.
Quote Details
| Topic | Coding & Programming |
|---|
More Quotes by Larry
Add to List

