Linux is a parasite

Linux is, to put it harshly, a parasite.

I like Linux. I use Linux. I encourage people to use it.

But I have to admit that Linux is successful because of the success of the IBM PC, and successful because the IBM PC was an open system.

When IBM released the PC, it documented the device and made it accessible to others. In contrast to its larger systems, which were documented less thoroughly, the PC documentation described almost every aspect of the hardware.

(This documentation may have been the result of the consent decree, the result of anti-trust litigation brought by the US Justice Department. Regardless of the source, the documentation was there.)

The openness of the PC made it possible for others to build accessory cards and eventually even clone PCs. (Those clone PCs, made first by Compaq and later by many others, did require some litigation of their own.)

The operating system, PC-DOS, was not made open. But enough of the hardware was defined to allow different people to create operating systems for the PC. In addition to Microsoft's PC-DOS, Digital Research produced a copy of CP/M-86 for the PC, SofTech produced the UCSD p-System, and I'm pretty sure that there was a copy of Forth for the PC.

Which brings us to Linux.

Linux, like the operating systems before it, runs on the PC architecture.

I realize that the PC of today is quite different from the original PC. (So different that none of the original PC hardware will work with today's PCs!) Yet the architecture is close enough, and the designs are open enough, that a "foreign" operating system (one designed by someone other than the PC designer) can run on the PC.

Linux has succeeded in the world, running on many devices. Lots of these devices are PCs. ("PC" in the general sense, not the specific model made by IBM.) It is easy to install Linux on an older PC, as an experiment or as a way to eke additional use out of a device that cannot run the latest version of Windows.

A few manufacturers have attempted to bundle Linux with hardware, with little success. Just about every copy of Linux on a PC has been installed "after-market": after the PC was sold and used for some period of time. (Most of my Linux PCs had Windows installed by the manufacturer, and I had to install Linux.)

Linux is taking advantage of the openness of PC hardware. In that sense, it is a parasite. The phrase may be a bit harsh, but I think it is accurate. You may not agree.

Regardless of your feelings about the term "parasite", the changes in hardware threaten Linux. Newer hardware is less open than the IBM PC. The Surface tablets from Microsoft do not use the standard BIOS and will not boot Linux. (Well, not without some hacking,) New PCs use the UEFI loader which guards against malware by checking signatures on boot images. The Apple iPhone and iPad devices use similar technology to boot only iOS.

Hardware is becoming closed. These new devices make it difficult, not easy, to load a "foreign" operating system.

I think Linux will continue to exist. I think that some number of open, old-style PCs will continue to be made (for several years). Linux will continue to exist in the form of Android.

But the new world of closed hardware is definitely a challenge for Linux. It may have to become something more than an "after-market" option for PCs.