[grisBeik]

> The problem is that vendors of hardware [...] do not want the OS to have full control over the hardware

I agree. At least the first half of the presentation blames the sordid status quo on Linux, all the while it is actually the responsibility of the hardware vendors. Linux not being the boot loader, Linux not being the firmware, Linux not being the secure firmware, etc etc etc is all the fault of the hardware vendors. They keep everything closed; even on totally mainstream architectures. On x86, whatever runs in SMM, whatever initializes the RAM chips, etc is all highly guarded intellectual property. On the handful select boards where everything is open (Raptor Talos II?), or reverse engineered, you get LinuxBoot, Coreboot, ... Whoever owns the lowest levels of the architecture, dictates everything; for example where Linux may run.

> Meanwhile, companies like Apple who integrate everything can have full control

Yes. Conway's law. As long as your SoC "congeals" from parts from a bunch of vendors, your operating system (in the broad sense the presenter uses the term in) is going to be a hodge-podge too. At best, you will have formal interfaces / specifications between components, and open source code for each component, but the whole will still lack an overarching design.

Edited to add: systems are incredibly overcomplicated too; they're perverse. To me, they've lost all appeal. They're unapproachable. I wish I had started my professional career twenty years earlier, when C (leading up to C89) still closely matched the hardware. (But I would have had to be born twenty years earlier for that :/)

Edit#2: the suggestion to build our own hardware is completely impractical. That only makes the barrier to entry higher. (IIRC, Linus Torvalds at one point wrote that ARM64 in Linux wasn't getting many contributions becasue there were simply no ARM64 workstations and laptops for interested individuals to buy and play with.)

[js8]

While I largely agree, I think this is inaccurate:

> Whoever owns the lowest levels of the architecture, dictates everything

I think in IT, the people who can create most complexity for others, while keeping things relatively simpler for themselves, can dictate. Because these people then can sell the expertise, since they "produce" it cheaper than everyone else.

Using HW barriers, or just closed-sourcing the stuff just happen to be quite effective ways how to make things complex for others and simple for yourself. Another way is to create your own language, standard or API. Yet another way is network barrier and data ownership (aka SaaS).

My point is, it's possible to dictate on any level, not just the lowest.

[grisBeik]

Thanks; this is a great thought! Let me try to refine it: "create irreplaceable complexity for others".

[rjsw]

Another area that could be open and cooperating in the operating system is network controllers, most have an offload engine of some kind but you can't extend what it does or fix bugs in it.