8 ms·

Linus Torvalds: Locked Down Technologies Lose in the End

97 points by RyanMcGreal 15y ago

losethos 15y ago
Most PC's will be locked-down, some won't. You'll be asked, "What's wrong with VMWare?" You'll have no answer. Are you a terrorist? God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\YANKEE.TXT e and I'll dictate thus: "PROCLAMATION --- "BE IT KNOWN UNTO ALL. Whereas the king having died and left no heir, it becomes my duty to continue the executive authority vested in me, until a government shall have been created and set in motion. The monarchy has lapsed, it no longer exists. By consequence, all political power has reverted to its original source, the people of the nation. With the monarchy, its severa God is just. That's all you have to know. I hate Linux more than I love LoseThos. Evil fuckers are merciless, so they'll get no mercy. You think I'm joking. Look at this shit: ------------------- # # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE # # It is automatically generated by grub-mkconfig using templates # from /etc/grub.d and settings from /etc/default/grub # ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/00_header ### if [ -s $prefix/grubenv ]; then set have_grubenv=true load_env fi set default="0" if [ "${prev_saved_entry}" ]; then set saved_entry="${prev_saved_entry}" save_env saved_entry set prev_saved_entry= save_env prev_saved_entry set boot_once=true fi function savedefault { if [ -z "${boot_once}" ]; then saved_entry="${chosen}" save_env saved_entry fi } function recordfail { set recordfail=1 if [ -n "${have_grubenv}" ]; then if [ -z "${boot_once}" ]; then save_env recordfail; fi; fi } function load_video { insmod vbe insmod vga insmod video_bochs insmod video_cirrus } insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 if loadfont /usr/share/grub/unicode.pf2 ; then set gfxmode=auto load_video insmod gfxterm fi terminal_output gfxterm insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 set locale_dir=($root)/boot/grub/locale set lang=en_US insmod gettext if [ "${recordfail}" = 1 ]; then set timeout=-1 else set timeout=10 fi ### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme ### set menu_color_normal=white/black set menu_color_highlight=black/light-gray if background_color 44,0,30; then clear fi ### END /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/10_linux ### if [ ${recordfail} != 1 ]; then if [ -e ${prefix}/gfxblacklist.txt ]; then if hwmatch ${prefix}/gfxblacklist.txt 3; then if [ ${match} = 0 ]; then set linux_gfx_mode=keep else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi else set linux_gfx_mode=keep fi else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi export linux_gfx_mode if [ "$linux_gfx_mode" != "text" ]; then load_video; fi ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober ### menuentry "Windows 7 (loader) (on /dev/sdb2)" --class windows --class os { insmod part_msdos insmod ntfs set root='(/dev/sdb,msdos2)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root BAE02E36E02DF971 chainloader +1 } ### END /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober ### menuentry 'Ubuntu, with Linux 2.6.38-8-generic' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os { recordfail set gfxpayload=$linux_gfx_mode insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-generic root=UUID=59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 ro quiet splash vt.handoff=7 initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.38-8-generic } menuentry 'Ubuntu, with Linux 2.6.38-8-generic (recovery mode)' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os { recordfail set gfxpayload=$linux_gfx_mode insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 echo 'Loading Linux 2.6.38-8-generic ...' linux /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-generic root=UUID=59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 ro single echo 'Loading initial ramdisk ...' initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.38-8-generic } ### END /etc/grub.d/10_linux ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/20_linux_xen ### ### END /etc/grub.d/20_linux_xen ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ ### menuentry "Memory test (memtest86+)" { insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux16 /boot/memtest86+.bin } menuentry "Memory test (memtest86+, serial console 115200)" { insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux16 /boot/memtest86+.bin console=ttyS0,115200n8 } ### END /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ ### menuentry "LoseThos D" { insmod chain set root=(hd0,msdos1) chainloader +1 } menuentry "LoseThos E" { insmod chain set root=(hd0,msdos5) chainloader +1 } menuentry "LoseThos I" { insmod chain set root=(hd1,msdos5) chainloader +1 } ---------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-f... All you have to know is God is just... right? God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT ment must be employed to suppress and punish every murmur and complaint against it. To a sovereign, on the contrary, who feels himself supported, not only by the natural aristocracy of the country, but by a well regulated standing army, the rudest, the most groundless, and the most licentious remonstrances, can give little disturbance. He can safely pardon or neglect them, and his consciousness of his own superiority naturally disposes him to do so. That degree of liberty which approaches to licenti
noahlt 15y ago
That's easy for him to say, but is there any evidence that this is, in fact, true?
- dredmorbius 15y ago
  Some. Interesting paper from some years ago on trends and missed opportunities in the computer industry. Unfortunately, it leaves off just where things get interesting: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpio/9406003.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpio/9406003.htm The general trend is that the more general, more flexible, lower-cost, more modular solution tends to win out in the long run. That's been different solutions at different times, but "more open" is a good general rule.
tjogin 15y ago
Whether locked down technologies "tend" to lose depends on what categories of technologies you count. A common mistake when speaking of closed vs. open systems is to look at a very narrow set of technologies and product categories, often limited to PCs, and extrapolate from that to other kinds of technologies, like smart phones. But the world of technology is bigger than that, much bigger. You've got everything from enterprise solutions, to consumer electronics, to embedded technologies. People want "open" and "freedom" in general purpose computing solutions, but people (regular people) tend to not even reflect on that in consumer electronics, like gaming consoles, GPS-devices, or the software in their cars. And, the last few years, many classes of computers are becoming more and more like consumer electronics devices, and less like PCs. Suffice to say, there are quite a few markets and product categories that are traditionally completely "locked down" or "closed" or "integrated", or whatever you want to call them, that absolutely do not "tend to lose in the end".
- dman 15y ago
  The parts of the market that have high barriers to entry benefit lesser from openness because its hard for an open alternative to bootstrap itself. The barriers to entry can be regulation (medical devices, hospital IT systems), cartels (music industry), financial (cost of developing custom hardware).
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  I'll add to that the amount of software we use that's not even really on our computers at all, but on a server somewhere else.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- shadowfox 15y ago
  It seems to me that people also tend to severely underestimate the amount of embedded systems in their life. The tech savvy sometimes think about systems in their car or their office elevator. Most people dont know and dont care. And we arent even talking about the electronics/software that runs the fancy coffee machine or that thermostat. As a tinkerer I had like to have (secure) access to some of these things. But as you said most people don't really care. And manufacturers have little incentive to open it up.
Bdennyw 15y ago
Linux on the desktop is a fantastic counter example.
- RyanMcGreal 15y ago
  It may be that MS-DOS/Windows has been "open enough" to capture and hold overwhelming market share. MS-DOS became the default PC OS in the 1980s due to Microsoft's cheap, non-exclusive licencing model, and Windows started out as a GUI layer on top of DOS. In addition, third party developers have always enjoyed free, open access to the same set of system APIs as Microsoft itself, so it has been an easy platform to develop for. That, in turn, has strengthened the positive network externality that keeps Windows dominant.
- sp332 15y ago
  You're cherry-picking an example. Linux in general is a counter-counter example. In addition to running a large proportion of webservers (actually the open-source Apache server hosts over 50% of all websites), Linux also runs on the majority of smartphones sold.
  - warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
    Seems like you're equally guilty of cherry-picking examples. Nothing you said is a counter-example to Linux on the desktop, which has less market share than two "locked in" OSs. Overall, Linux has lower OS market share than five other operating systems, all of which are either from Microsoft or Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
    - omlette 15y ago
      linux on the desktop isnt really a good example because most people don't care about changing the default OS and gamers make up a large %age of people who build their own computers. linux never really stood a chance.
  - jeffdavis 15y ago
rajpaul 15y ago
Take what Linus says about locked down technologies losing in the long term and consider that technology is often a "winner takes all" game and we have an interesting scenario playing out for iOS in the future.
- protomyth 15y ago
  Technology is not often a "winner take all" game. The PC industry is the anomaly. Which other technology industries have one winner? Sure isn't cellphones or TVs.
  - jiggy2011 15y ago
    In terms of interchangeable commodities there is space for many players. But in terms of more fundamental standards such as Windows vs Mac , JS vs Flash , VHS vs Betamax there tends to be one strongly dominant winner. The Mac only became really popular once it basically became a PC with a different GUI. In terms of cellphones pre smart-phone most were basically interchangeable since they were all capable of making voice calls and SMS over GSM , there was limited interest in developing applications for them by 3rd parties. The disadvantage that iOS has in terms of becoming dominant is that only apple at present makes hardware which can run it (officially anyway) so it is in Apple's interest to keep the hardware cost relatively high since they make allot of money from selling it. Once the it gets to the point where everybody wants a smartphone and tablet computer there will be allot of pressure for low cost products which Apple has no interest in providing. Android & similar can win bigger here because google does not make money from the hardware. They make money from the advertising etc so they are mostly interested in making sure that there are as many low cost products as possible that can run their software.
    - protomyth 15y ago
      I still think if I listed every category of electronics, you could not find a dominant player in the majority of them. I find it interesting that you ignore Apple's behavior with the iPod. Apple was more than willing to provide a low cost product. I really don't see why people think that trend won't be repeated.
blinkingled 15y ago
A better way to put it would be to say "Locked down technologies tend to not become as ubiquitous as their open counterparts". Linux is a good example - other proprietary UNIX systems are not everywhere as Linux is (openness being relative). Windows is another - it was more open than OS X. Both proprietary UNIX systems and OS X lost in terms of market share. Another example is Sony's proprietary formats - Memory Stick Duo Pro or whatever it was called. So there is a definite history of markets preferring open alternatives when they were practical and at least in the same ballpark of usability of the closed/proprietary counterparts. Also the context is important as the article points out - .. in Brazil, where Apple iPhone users cannot buy games for the device, due to specific legal requirements from the Brazilian government. Apple has reacted by simply removing the games category for users in Brazil altogether. Because of its secretive corporate culture, Apple has recently been criticized in Brazil for being the “most closed company in the world.”
- archangel_one 15y ago
  I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a monopoly for some time. OSX hasn't gotten any more open over time (probably less so, in fact) but its market share has gone up and Apple is now worth more as a company than Microsoft - so who's lost there?
  - protomyth 15y ago
    I really doesn't make sense to compare OS X versus Windows given the history of both parts of OS X (OpenStep and Mac OS). Mac OS was available on clones and didn't expand the market at all. OpenStep was available on multiple platforms from multiple vendors. Neither gained market share. To be fair about it, 1984 was a little too late in the game as the C64 was losing share, Apple was already pretty low (both II and Mac), and Microsoft already had a hefty advantage [1]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5
  - astine 15y ago
    I'm fairly certain the grandparent meant MacOS for which the explanation would make sense. Dos and Windows were more widely available and could run more software because of Microsoft's comparatively open business model.
jorgecastillo 15y ago
I think Linus got it wrong.To me(I am no expert) technologies that work win. People(companies, government, etc) don't really care about openness, they care about usefulness. I believe that when it comes, to choosing a technology for a certain task, the best technology for that task, will tend to win marketshare.
- tikhonj 15y ago
  What I've found is that it isn't the best technology that wins every time: an option that is good enough but is heavily marketed or backed by a virtual monopoly is likely to beat out better technology.
jsz0 15y ago
Hasn't hurt the gaming industry at all. That's probably where things are heading for general purpose computing.
ikeough 15y ago
Mr. Torvalds is confusing market freedom with the freedom to install other software on your devices. Market freedom is the ability to choose those products which suit your needs. Given the growth of apple in the last few years, it is quite obviously the case that the "free" market is working. I'm also not entirely sure what he means by "losing in the end". Apple and Micorosft have no responsibility other than to return value to their shareholders. They are, most decidedly, winning in this regard. If he means, losing simply based on adoption of a technology than only time will tell, but even if Apple and Microsoft fall in the long term it will still be an example of the free market at work.
andos 15y ago
Then¹: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven't really worked on it. Now: I’m an optimist: openness is successful in the long run, secure boot is another one of these passing fads. Not implying that he is being incoherent or, even worse, that he cannot change his mind. The passing fad of secure boot meant by Linus is probably using it to lock down a device. ¹. http://www.muktware.com/news/2865 http://www.muktware.com/news/2865 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196098
merryandrew 15y ago
If you want an interesting perspective on this idea, check The Master Switch, written by Tim Wu. http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Vintage/dp/0307390993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321640163&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Vint... Amazon Book Description: It is easy to forget that every development in the history of the American information industry–from the telephone to radio to film–once existed in an open and chaotic marketplace inhabited by entrepreneurs and utopians, just as the Internet does today. Each of these, however, grew to be dominated by a monopolist or cartel. In this pathbreaking book, Tim Wu asks: will the Internet follow the same fate? Could the Web–the entire flow of American information–come to be ruled by a corporate leviathan in possession of "the master switch"? Analyzing the strategic maneuvers of today’s great information powers–Apple, Google, and an eerily resurgent AT&T–Wu uncovers a time-honored pattern in which invention begets industry and industry begets empire. He shows how a battle royale for Internet’s future is brewing, and this is one war we dare not tune out.
jeffreymcmanus 15y ago
The only question here is what "in the end" means. I can make a bet that, say, OSX won't exist in its current form in twenty years. But that doesn't inform any particular action I should take today. "The end" can be a long time away, and in technology empires rise and fall in a span of three to five years.
- leot 15y ago
  Agree. Long run behavior is mostly useful when deciding between two competing alternatives in which the short-term consequences are unimportant. I'd assert that the widely-accepted "in the end" kinds notions are noxious, and speak to a "happily ever after" narrative that has always been false. "In the long run we're all dead." Another such poisonous idea is "the truth will out" -- sure, maybe. But once it does it could no longer matter, and there will likely be other far more significant falsehoods to worry about. Similarly, "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." When it comes to knowledge, this might be translated as "populations can remain ignorant and make stupid decisions long enough to have irreversible disastrous consequences."
larrik 15y ago
Secure Boot isn't a Windows 8 feature, it's an EFI feature that Windows 8 will require. the concern being that Microsoft will convince manufacturers to lock out non-Windows OS's from being installed. I think that distinction is pretty important.
- tankenmate 15y ago
  I don't think it is so much Microsoft convincing OEMs to lock out other OSes, it's more like MS relying on OEMs being lazy and not putting the option to load your own keys into the BIOS.
  - larrik 15y ago
    Maybe, maybe not. Microsoft DOES have a history of strong-arming OEMs into being Windows-only. If they get lazy it'll only be because they don't see Linux as a threat anymore.
- zokier 15y ago
  Windows 8 does not require Secure Boot.
hello-trolls 15y ago
<$
shaggyfrog 15y ago
"Most people want freedom". Yes. Also, most people want their technology to just work. So how about we add: Complicated Technologies Lose in the End. But we can use Occam's Razor to shave both statements down to the truth: most technologies lose in the end. Because most things go obsolete. That includes open technologies.

97 points by RyanMcGreal 15y ago

Most PC's will be locked-down, some won't. You'll be asked, "What's wrong with VMWare?" You'll have no answer. Are you a terrorist? God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\YANKEE.TXT e and I'll dictate thus: "PROCLAMATION --- "BE IT KNOWN UNTO ALL. Whereas the king having died and left no heir, it becomes my duty to continue the executive authority vested in me, until a government shall have been created and set in motion. The monarchy has lapsed, it no longer exists. By consequence, all political power has reverted to its original source, the people of the nation. With the monarchy, its severa God is just. That's all you have to know. I hate Linux more than I love LoseThos. Evil fuckers are merciless, so they'll get no mercy. You think I'm joking. Look at this shit: ------------------- # # DO NOT EDIT THIS FILE # # It is automatically generated by grub-mkconfig using templates # from /etc/grub.d and settings from /etc/default/grub # ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/00_header ### if [ -s $prefix/grubenv ]; then set have_grubenv=true load_env fi set default="0" if [ "${prev_saved_entry}" ]; then set saved_entry="${prev_saved_entry}" save_env saved_entry set prev_saved_entry= save_env prev_saved_entry set boot_once=true fi function savedefault { if [ -z "${boot_once}" ]; then saved_entry="${chosen}" save_env saved_entry fi } function recordfail { set recordfail=1 if [ -n "${have_grubenv}" ]; then if [ -z "${boot_once}" ]; then save_env recordfail; fi; fi } function load_video { insmod vbe insmod vga insmod video_bochs insmod video_cirrus } insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 if loadfont /usr/share/grub/unicode.pf2 ; then set gfxmode=auto load_video insmod gfxterm fi terminal_output gfxterm insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 set locale_dir=($root)/boot/grub/locale set lang=en_US insmod gettext if [ "${recordfail}" = 1 ]; then set timeout=-1 else set timeout=10 fi ### END /etc/grub.d/00_header ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme ### set menu_color_normal=white/black set menu_color_highlight=black/light-gray if background_color 44,0,30; then clear fi ### END /etc/grub.d/05_debian_theme ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/10_linux ### if [ ${recordfail} != 1 ]; then if [ -e ${prefix}/gfxblacklist.txt ]; then if hwmatch ${prefix}/gfxblacklist.txt 3; then if [ ${match} = 0 ]; then set linux_gfx_mode=keep else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi else set linux_gfx_mode=keep fi else set linux_gfx_mode=text fi export linux_gfx_mode if [ "$linux_gfx_mode" != "text" ]; then load_video; fi ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober ### menuentry "Windows 7 (loader) (on /dev/sdb2)" --class windows --class os { insmod part_msdos insmod ntfs set root='(/dev/sdb,msdos2)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root BAE02E36E02DF971 chainloader +1 } ### END /etc/grub.d/30_os-prober ### menuentry 'Ubuntu, with Linux 2.6.38-8-generic' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os { recordfail set gfxpayload=$linux_gfx_mode insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-generic root=UUID=59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 ro quiet splash vt.handoff=7 initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.38-8-generic } menuentry 'Ubuntu, with Linux 2.6.38-8-generic (recovery mode)' --class ubuntu --class gnu-linux --class gnu --class os { recordfail set gfxpayload=$linux_gfx_mode insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 echo 'Loading Linux 2.6.38-8-generic ...' linux /boot/vmlinuz-2.6.38-8-generic root=UUID=59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 ro single echo 'Loading initial ramdisk ...' initrd /boot/initrd.img-2.6.38-8-generic } ### END /etc/grub.d/10_linux ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/20_linux_xen ### ### END /etc/grub.d/20_linux_xen ### ### BEGIN /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ ### menuentry "Memory test (memtest86+)" { insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux16 /boot/memtest86+.bin } menuentry "Memory test (memtest86+, serial console 115200)" { insmod part_msdos insmod ext2 set root='(/dev/sda,msdos7)' search --no-floppy --fs-uuid --set=root 59a819c4-7e13-4350-9803-f59d136854d8 linux16 /boot/memtest86+.bin console=ttyS0,115200n8 } ### END /etc/grub.d/20_memtest86+ ### menuentry "LoseThos D" { insmod chain set root=(hd0,msdos1) chainloader +1 } menuentry "LoseThos E" { insmod chain set root=(hd0,msdos5) chainloader +1 } menuentry "LoseThos I" { insmod chain set root=(hd1,msdos5) chainloader +1 } ---------------- http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-fake-terror-plots?fb=native&CMP=FBCNETTXT9038 http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/16/fbi-entrapment-f... All you have to know is God is just... right? God says... C:\LoseThos\www.losethos.com\text\WEALTH.TXT ment must be employed to suppress and punish every murmur and complaint against it. To a sovereign, on the contrary, who feels himself supported, not only by the natural aristocracy of the country, but by a well regulated standing army, the rudest, the most groundless, and the most licentious remonstrances, can give little disturbance. He can safely pardon or neglect them, and his consciousness of his own superiority naturally disposes him to do so. That degree of liberty which approaches to licenti

noahlt 15y ago

That's easy for him to say, but is there any evidence that this is, in fact, true?

dredmorbius 15y ago
Some. Interesting paper from some years ago on trends and missed opportunities in the computer industry. Unfortunately, it leaves off just where things get interesting: http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpio/9406003.htm http://econpapers.repec.org/paper/wpawuwpio/9406003.htm The general trend is that the more general, more flexible, lower-cost, more modular solution tends to win out in the long run. That's been different solutions at different times, but "more open" is a good general rule.

tjogin 15y ago

Whether locked down technologies "tend" to lose depends on what categories of technologies you count. A common mistake when speaking of closed vs. open systems is to look at a very narrow set of technologies and product categories, often limited to PCs, and extrapolate from that to other kinds of technologies, like smart phones. But the world of technology is bigger than that, much bigger. You've got everything from enterprise solutions, to consumer electronics, to embedded technologies. People want "open" and "freedom" in general purpose computing solutions, but people (regular people) tend to not even reflect on that in consumer electronics, like gaming consoles, GPS-devices, or the software in their cars. And, the last few years, many classes of computers are becoming more and more like consumer electronics devices, and less like PCs. Suffice to say, there are quite a few markets and product categories that are traditionally completely "locked down" or "closed" or "integrated", or whatever you want to call them, that absolutely do not "tend to lose in the end".

dman 15y ago
The parts of the market that have high barriers to entry benefit lesser from openness because its hard for an open alternative to bootstrap itself. The barriers to entry can be regulation (medical devices, hospital IT systems), cartels (music industry), financial (cost of developing custom hardware).
jeffdavis 15y ago
I'll add to that the amount of software we use that's not even really on our computers at all, but on a server somewhere else.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
shadowfox 15y ago
It seems to me that people also tend to severely underestimate the amount of embedded systems in their life. The tech savvy sometimes think about systems in their car or their office elevator. Most people dont know and dont care. And we arent even talking about the electronics/software that runs the fancy coffee machine or that thermostat. As a tinkerer I had like to have (secure) access to some of these things. But as you said most people don't really care. And manufacturers have little incentive to open it up.

Bdennyw 15y ago

Linux on the desktop is a fantastic counter example.

RyanMcGreal 15y ago
It may be that MS-DOS/Windows has been "open enough" to capture and hold overwhelming market share. MS-DOS became the default PC OS in the 1980s due to Microsoft's cheap, non-exclusive licencing model, and Windows started out as a GUI layer on top of DOS. In addition, third party developers have always enjoyed free, open access to the same set of system APIs as Microsoft itself, so it has been an easy platform to develop for. That, in turn, has strengthened the positive network externality that keeps Windows dominant.
sp332 15y ago
You're cherry-picking an example. Linux in general is a counter-counter example. In addition to running a large proportion of webservers (actually the open-source Apache server hosts over 50% of all websites), Linux also runs on the majority of smartphones sold.
- warmfuzzykitten 15y ago
  Seems like you're equally guilty of cherry-picking examples. Nothing you said is a counter-example to Linux on the desktop, which has less market share than two "locked in" OSs. Overall, Linux has lower OS market share than five other operating systems, all of which are either from Microsoft or Apple. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_systems http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Usage_share_of_operating_system...
  - omlette 15y ago
    linux on the desktop isnt really a good example because most people don't care about changing the default OS and gamers make up a large %age of people who build their own computers. linux never really stood a chance.
- jeffdavis 15y ago

rajpaul 15y ago

Take what Linus says about locked down technologies losing in the long term and consider that technology is often a "winner takes all" game and we have an interesting scenario playing out for iOS in the future.

protomyth 15y ago
Technology is not often a "winner take all" game. The PC industry is the anomaly. Which other technology industries have one winner? Sure isn't cellphones or TVs.
- jiggy2011 15y ago
  In terms of interchangeable commodities there is space for many players. But in terms of more fundamental standards such as Windows vs Mac , JS vs Flash , VHS vs Betamax there tends to be one strongly dominant winner. The Mac only became really popular once it basically became a PC with a different GUI. In terms of cellphones pre smart-phone most were basically interchangeable since they were all capable of making voice calls and SMS over GSM , there was limited interest in developing applications for them by 3rd parties. The disadvantage that iOS has in terms of becoming dominant is that only apple at present makes hardware which can run it (officially anyway) so it is in Apple's interest to keep the hardware cost relatively high since they make allot of money from selling it. Once the it gets to the point where everybody wants a smartphone and tablet computer there will be allot of pressure for low cost products which Apple has no interest in providing. Android & similar can win bigger here because google does not make money from the hardware. They make money from the advertising etc so they are mostly interested in making sure that there are as many low cost products as possible that can run their software.
  - protomyth 15y ago
    I still think if I listed every category of electronics, you could not find a dominant player in the majority of them. I find it interesting that you ignore Apple's behavior with the iPod. Apple was more than willing to provide a low cost product. I really don't see why people think that trend won't be repeated.

blinkingled 15y ago

A better way to put it would be to say "Locked down technologies tend to not become as ubiquitous as their open counterparts". Linux is a good example - other proprietary UNIX systems are not everywhere as Linux is (openness being relative). Windows is another - it was more open than OS X. Both proprietary UNIX systems and OS X lost in terms of market share. Another example is Sony's proprietary formats - Memory Stick Duo Pro or whatever it was called. So there is a definite history of markets preferring open alternatives when they were practical and at least in the same ballpark of usability of the closed/proprietary counterparts. Also the context is important as the article points out - .. in Brazil, where Apple iPhone users cannot buy games for the device, due to specific legal requirements from the Brazilian government. Apple has reacted by simply removing the games category for users in Brazil altogether. Because of its secretive corporate culture, Apple has recently been criticized in Brazil for being the “most closed company in the world.”

archangel_one 15y ago
I don't think it makes sense to compare Windows and OSX and say that OSX lost because it was less open. By the time OSX came around Windows had been a monopoly for some time. OSX hasn't gotten any more open over time (probably less so, in fact) but its market share has gone up and Apple is now worth more as a company than Microsoft - so who's lost there?
- protomyth 15y ago
  I really doesn't make sense to compare OS X versus Windows given the history of both parts of OS X (OpenStep and Mac OS). Mac OS was available on clones and didn't expand the market at all. OpenStep was available on multiple platforms from multiple vendors. Neither gained market share. To be fair about it, 1984 was a little too late in the game as the C64 was losing share, Apple was already pretty low (both II and Mac), and Microsoft already had a hefty advantage [1]. [1] http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5 http://arstechnica.com/old/content/2005/12/total-share.ars/5
- astine 15y ago
  I'm fairly certain the grandparent meant MacOS for which the explanation would make sense. Dos and Windows were more widely available and could run more software because of Microsoft's comparatively open business model.

jorgecastillo 15y ago

I think Linus got it wrong.To me(I am no expert) technologies that work win. People(companies, government, etc) don't really care about openness, they care about usefulness. I believe that when it comes, to choosing a technology for a certain task, the best technology for that task, will tend to win marketshare.

tikhonj 15y ago
What I've found is that it isn't the best technology that wins every time: an option that is good enough but is heavily marketed or backed by a virtual monopoly is likely to beat out better technology.

jsz0 15y ago

Hasn't hurt the gaming industry at all. That's probably where things are heading for general purpose computing.

ikeough 15y ago

Mr. Torvalds is confusing market freedom with the freedom to install other software on your devices. Market freedom is the ability to choose those products which suit your needs. Given the growth of apple in the last few years, it is quite obviously the case that the "free" market is working. I'm also not entirely sure what he means by "losing in the end". Apple and Micorosft have no responsibility other than to return value to their shareholders. They are, most decidedly, winning in this regard. If he means, losing simply based on adoption of a technology than only time will tell, but even if Apple and Microsoft fall in the long term it will still be an example of the free market at work.

andos 15y ago

Then¹: I actually think secure boot makes a lot of sense. I think we should sign our modules. I think we should use the technology to do cryptographic signatures to add security; and at the same time inside the open source community this is so unpopular that people haven't really worked on it. Now: I’m an optimist: openness is successful in the long run, secure boot is another one of these passing fads. Not implying that he is being incoherent or, even worse, that he cannot change his mind. The passing fad of secure boot meant by Linus is probably using it to lock down a device. ¹. http://www.muktware.com/news/2865 http://www.muktware.com/news/2865 and http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196098 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3196098

merryandrew 15y ago

If you want an interesting perspective on this idea, check The Master Switch, written by Tim Wu. http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Vintage/dp/0307390993/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&qid=1321640163&sr=8-1 http://www.amazon.com/Master-Switch-Information-Empires-Vint... Amazon Book Description: It is easy to forget that every development in the history of the American information industry–from the telephone to radio to film–once existed in an open and chaotic marketplace inhabited by entrepreneurs and utopians, just as the Internet does today. Each of these, however, grew to be dominated by a monopolist or cartel. In this pathbreaking book, Tim Wu asks: will the Internet follow the same fate? Could the Web–the entire flow of American information–come to be ruled by a corporate leviathan in possession of "the master switch"? Analyzing the strategic maneuvers of today’s great information powers–Apple, Google, and an eerily resurgent AT&T–Wu uncovers a time-honored pattern in which invention begets industry and industry begets empire. He shows how a battle royale for Internet’s future is brewing, and this is one war we dare not tune out.

jeffreymcmanus 15y ago

The only question here is what "in the end" means. I can make a bet that, say, OSX won't exist in its current form in twenty years. But that doesn't inform any particular action I should take today. "The end" can be a long time away, and in technology empires rise and fall in a span of three to five years.

leot 15y ago
Agree. Long run behavior is mostly useful when deciding between two competing alternatives in which the short-term consequences are unimportant. I'd assert that the widely-accepted "in the end" kinds notions are noxious, and speak to a "happily ever after" narrative that has always been false. "In the long run we're all dead." Another such poisonous idea is "the truth will out" -- sure, maybe. But once it does it could no longer matter, and there will likely be other far more significant falsehoods to worry about. Similarly, "Markets can remain irrational a lot longer than you and I can remain solvent." When it comes to knowledge, this might be translated as "populations can remain ignorant and make stupid decisions long enough to have irreversible disastrous consequences."

larrik 15y ago

Secure Boot isn't a Windows 8 feature, it's an EFI feature that Windows 8 will require. the concern being that Microsoft will convince manufacturers to lock out non-Windows OS's from being installed. I think that distinction is pretty important.

tankenmate 15y ago
I don't think it is so much Microsoft convincing OEMs to lock out other OSes, it's more like MS relying on OEMs being lazy and not putting the option to load your own keys into the BIOS.
- larrik 15y ago
  Maybe, maybe not. Microsoft DOES have a history of strong-arming OEMs into being Windows-only. If they get lazy it'll only be because they don't see Linux as a threat anymore.
zokier 15y ago
Windows 8 does not require Secure Boot.

hello-trolls 15y ago

shaggyfrog 15y ago

"Most people want freedom". Yes. Also, most people want their technology to just work. So how about we add: Complicated Technologies Lose in the End. But we can use Occam's Razor to shave both statements down to the truth: most technologies lose in the end. Because most things go obsolete. That includes open technologies.