This is terrible.
1. He talks about how Linux is in tons of stuff and says that everything is
run "on" Linux. At one point, he even says something about our economy and
Linux. A lot of the stuff he talks about is computers running GNU/Linux, and
these same computers also run X. It's a completely moot point.
2. He says right off the bat to not "dream big". Problem: Linux might have
been done without dreaming big, but it never would have gotten to where it is
now if GNU wasn't available to combine with it. At best, it could have become
another proprietary Unix system. Later, he says that not having a plan is a
good idea, and the same thing applies here: GNU had a huge plan that was
executed throughout most of the 1980s.
3. He shows a horribly misleading graph comparing Red Hat, IBM, and Microsoft
and insignuates that it somehow shows that free software-based business
necessarily gives companies more money than nonfree software-based business.
It's misleading because he includes *hardware* that IBM sells that happens to
use "open source" software; this has absolutely nothing to do with
profitibility of free software versus nonfree software. The graph is also
based on growth of profit as a percentage of their respective profits in
2008, not actual money earned; all the graph really shows is that Microsoft
is making the same amount, while Red Hat and IBM are making more, and this
says absolutely nothing about how good their business models are.
4. He treats Apple's use of some free software in a horrible nonfree OS (iOS)
as being an example of "open source" business and a good thing. He similarly
treats Facebook.
