2 ms·

> Think of what truly open VR headsets, smartwatches, tablets and smartphones etc. would be capable of, the rich ecosystem of apps and capabilities that could e

> Think of what truly open VR headsets, smartwatches, tablets and smartphones etc. would be capable of, the rich ecosystem of apps and capabilities that could exist - but greed is literally holding us back by decades. This is a bit of a non-sequitur. Far and away the biggest ecosystem of apps ever created for everyday users existed on Windows, an infamously proprietary platform. Nothing on Linux or Unixes has ever compared (unlike server software, which is the opposite). But, of course, Windows was always open in a different sense, one in which non-PC devices have never been, even those built with open-source software (Android). So yes, I do agree that open-ness is important, but I don't think FOSS has much to do with that.

threeseed 3y ago
Also Android is very loosely considered as open. Samsung and Google layer so many proprietary components on top that it's more of an open foundation rather than a true open platform.
Draiken 3y ago
But that's merely because of market share. If the majority started using Linux, you'd see the same growth of the app ecosystem. But it's a chicken and the egg problem. Without more users, we don't have more apps/polish on Linux, but without polish, it's not going to get any more users. Do you have stats to back that claim? Isn't the biggest ecosystem of apps ever created on Android (Linux)? We have way more smartphones than PCs.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  By sheer number, probably either iOS or Android have the crown. If you remove all the identical games with different skins and all of the glorified web pages, I'm not as sure that they beat Windows - especially considering how much enterprise productivity software exists on Windows that IT teams built for a single company or two. But either way, they each beat Linux user apps by orders of magnitude.
margana 3y ago
While Windows itself may be proprietary, it mostly runs on fairly open hardware. Open in the sense that the manufacturer doesn't impose artificial limitations on what software is allowed to run on it, and also provides very thorough documentation for it, giving no advantage to any party in regards to information. Also Windows itself is open in the sense that it doesn't restrict any software from running on it. You can write user-mode applications and run them on any architecturally compatible Windows system. You can write drivers to run kernel mode code on any Windows system (you can disable signature verification). In the case of Windows, it being proprietary doesn't actually limit what anyone else can do on it nor is it artificially limited to only run on approved hardware. In many ways, it is open.
- tsimionescu 3y ago
  Yes, that was exactly my point at the end. You need an open system in the sense that no one controls access to it, but it doesn't have to be open in the sense of open source.

threeseed 3y ago

Also Android is very loosely considered as open. Samsung and Google layer so many proprietary components on top that it's more of an open foundation rather than a true open platform.

Draiken 3y ago

But that's merely because of market share. If the majority started using Linux, you'd see the same growth of the app ecosystem. But it's a chicken and the egg problem. Without more users, we don't have more apps/polish on Linux, but without polish, it's not going to get any more users. Do you have stats to back that claim? Isn't the biggest ecosystem of apps ever created on Android (Linux)? We have way more smartphones than PCs.

tsimionescu 3y ago
By sheer number, probably either iOS or Android have the crown. If you remove all the identical games with different skins and all of the glorified web pages, I'm not as sure that they beat Windows - especially considering how much enterprise productivity software exists on Windows that IT teams built for a single company or two. But either way, they each beat Linux user apps by orders of magnitude.

margana 3y ago

While Windows itself may be proprietary, it mostly runs on fairly open hardware. Open in the sense that the manufacturer doesn't impose artificial limitations on what software is allowed to run on it, and also provides very thorough documentation for it, giving no advantage to any party in regards to information. Also Windows itself is open in the sense that it doesn't restrict any software from running on it. You can write user-mode applications and run them on any architecturally compatible Windows system. You can write drivers to run kernel mode code on any Windows system (you can disable signature verification). In the case of Windows, it being proprietary doesn't actually limit what anyone else can do on it nor is it artificially limited to only run on approved hardware. In many ways, it is open.

tsimionescu 3y ago
Yes, that was exactly my point at the end. You need an open system in the sense that no one controls access to it, but it doesn't have to be open in the sense of open source.