He doesn't call the closed tools part of the problem, rather he asks why it is the case that these tools remain more successful at engaging newcomers than all t

He doesn't call the closed tools part of the problem, rather he asks why it is the case that these tools remain more successful at engaging newcomers than all the open source stuff, and draws a connection between the fully proprietary devices of yesteryear and these modern environments: Whatever the causes, we have software and hardware systems that strive to be entirely open, yet time and again are closed ones that are more accessible in practice, that drive social revolutions. Linux didn't change the desktop, nor the way software is made. And he suggests the answer that's been in the air lately: open software is now seen as a corporate business strategy, a cost-cutting measure. Which in turn means that proprietary software is now the stuff at the vanguard for the "little guy", creatively speaking, and many of the old hacker credos that correlate with "information wants to be free" are false, are in fact as elitist as you state.