When studying history though, we shouldn't lose track of the fact that it needs to be analysed based on the period it happened. From fighting a closed and paten

When studying history though, we shouldn't lose track of the fact that it needs to be analysed based on the period it happened. From fighting a closed and patented *Nix systems, Linux has emerged as the current torch bearer of open systems in our era. It has made so much stride, that we are even thinking in terms of open hardware today (and it is a reality too, even if not yet successful). Today's computing world is no longer like the past. Open source is an accepted reality in both the corporate world and among the general population. You are right that in the past, reverse engineering helped clone hardware and make it more open. It was necessary then. Perhaps I am ignorant here, and I would like insights on this, but I don't understand the practicality of trying to reverse-engineer Apple's custom GPU when it is not even freely available or can even be used in any custom hardware configuration. Especially when alternative GPUs with open source drivers already exist (and need work). And Apple can anytime thwart such efforts very easily with a firmware update. My main concern is that the BigTech are again closing ranks together to fight against the open movement - today, we are at the cusp of losing our computing freedom again with the aggressive push towards cloud computing, and locked down systems like the Apple M1. Apple is in the forefront here as it has build its business with closed-box systems and resisting against right-to-repair legislation. Fighting and avoiding open systems is in their DNA. That is why I believe porting Linux to the M1 is not only unnecessary but also a waste of resource and talent. Supporting existing and new open systems (if necessary by reverse engineering it) is more practical in the long run.