Slashdot Mirror
How Will Steam on GNU/Linux Affect Software Freedom?
rms has published his thoughts on Steam coming to GNU/Linux. He notes that the availability of proprietary games may very well help spread GNU/Linux (but the FSF prioritizes spreading software freedom). And, you're better off at least having a Free operating system instead of Windows: "My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community? Any GNU/Linux distro that comes with software to offer these games will teach users that the point is not freedom. Nonfree software in GNU/Linux distros already works against the goal of freedom. Adding these games to a distro would augment that effect."
Or: How will the FOSS community affect Valve? Already they've contributed a bit to the graphics stack, hired a few folks from inside the community, etc. But Steam also makes use of DRM and distributes software in ways that are opposed to the ideals of many in the FOSS community (and even the wider Free Culture community). Given Gabe Newell's professed love for openness, might we see their company culture infiltrated?
Talk about missing the point of software completely.
...who intentionally confuse the freedoms of the user with the freedoms of the proprietary software developer.
Linux has failed on the desktop for the past decades and will continue to fail on the desktop in the future decades.
Face it the ONLY thing bringing Linux to the desktop currently is GAMING.
Would you prefer Origins on Linux or Steam? Frankly I would prefer neither as both are VERY ANTI COMPETITIVE but Linux needs something and this could be it.
frankly, i don't see the point why some of us should be ideologues in the community. it's divisive and it may not allow for greater efficiency. I'd go with what Linus said "whatever works best"
Android devices are mostly locked down in ways that are hard to circumvent. Arguably, Android is already quite bad for software freedom.
There are plenty of free game engines out there, we don't need all of them to be free. The assets will never be free either, and that's the product in the end, that's what the game is all about.
The engine being free would make supporting the games in the future easier, but with the underlying architecture of the platform being open and well documented, it isn't impossible.
Twinstiq, game news
I say this as a free software developer: At some point, you just want software and don't care about the politics. Not everything has to be political -- just look at Chick-Fil-A as an example of how this way of thinking can backfire.
I play games for entertainment, not to make a political statement. Let's keep the two worlds separate.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
Everything that promotes the jump from proprietary computing to free computing is good; even if that thing is not, itself, free. Breaking the stranglehold on the OS is an important first step.
"Any GNU/Linux distro that comes with software to offer these games will teach users that the point is not freedom."
An OS won't teach anyone about anything.. And since when was using Linux about freedom?
Im all for open/free software(the laptop im posting this from is Windows 7(But atleast im using firefox ;)), my other laptop is Arch, my 2 servers are both ArchServer), but rms needs to be ignored.
He is stuck in another world, like zeitgeist hippies.
Games are coming to Linux!
RMS will have kittens and tell people how to speak and think in the name of 'freedom'.
Man, Linux used to be cool before all these newbs showed up with their games.
Free software is most certainly an admirable goal.
But if market forces and existing conditions mean that proprietary software is the most expedient way to get the software delivered to the customer, then that's what will happen.
Valve gets Linux bugs fixed, and they can make legitimate and credible arguments for things that should be changed about Linux. There is no doubt that they are contributing to the long term health and stability of linux.
If the vendor has proprietary software and the customer finds it to be the best solution, the job of the operating system is to get out of the way and allow the customer to do what he wants.
The goal of GNU and the FSF was never to lock out commercial providers, but to provide a free core system. Nothing is being broken, stolen, taken away, or rescinded.
The whole article is nothing but pseudo-pedantic flame bait.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
I don't follow the politics of Linux so please bear with me. Couldn't this be a paradox because Steam coming to Linux could be a game changer, pardon the pun, for mainstream adoption but could it not open up patent claims against it? While Microsoft, for instance, is currently having a benign attitude towards Linux with their Hyper-V support in the Kernel, couldn't they go into attack mode and wheel out patent claims if they feel their MS Windows Gaming/XBox platforms threatened by Steam on Linux?
that emacs and gcc were written on HPUX systems
what's the "lesson" to be learned from these programs?
The title of this article is begging the question because it assumes (without evidence) that having Steam available on GNU/Linux will affect software freedom. I'm not saying that it won't, but I'd prefer to see some evidence instead of just taking it for granted that it will. Much better would have been simply, Will Steam on Gnu/Linux affect software freedom?
Good, inexpensive web hosting
keep talking to straw men
many of us work with paid-for RHEL subscriptions, and our software drives sales of more RHEL licenses
many of us find linux bugs, both in the kernel and in supporting apps, and we report those bugs, providing great value.
do you have any data supporting your assertion that linux users are freeloaders?
windows users got their OS for free when they bought their computer. What makes them different?
What's wrong with having the 'freedom' to use 'nonfree' programs?
...getting more annoying thant iCRAP. *FU* RMS.
Valve has opened up all of their games to the modders, accusing them of not being free is ignorant.
Why has it automatically "failed" simply because it's not on every Tom, Dick and Harry's desktop?
So far, GNU/Linux on the desktop has "failed" to become widespread enough that users expect to have local support options of the "carry in your PC and we'll fix it" sort. And until Valve's recent announcement, it has "failed" to attract developers of major killer apps.
I see this as a great thing because games is pretty much the last reason I have for a dual boot system. Anything serious I do under Linux as its a far better tool, but some of my favorite games are windows-only so I still need a windows partition around. Assuming they start to port most windows games to Linux too, I can finally dump my windows partition.
I know gaming won't change any minds in corporate IT depts, but at least it may encourage non-technical users to try Linux at home. It seems that a large reason corporates have for justifying continuing to force their employees onto Windows is that "everyone is more familiar with Windows than Linux". Lets hope steam on Linux can help to change that too.
I consider games not to be "software" for some time, it became part of entertainment industry, like films or music. It is created by large studios where programmers are only one ever smaller part of team. For this reason, I consider Steam equivalent of YouTube: channel that enables me to consume commercial entertainment, on my free OS, that remains fully GPL (minus GPU driver).
839*929
Android devices are mostly locked down in ways that are hard to circumvent.
Except for the ones that aren't.
Historically, the handsets that are more locked down have been cheaper to own than the ones that aren't. When smartphone service costs $200 plus $70 per month with a subsidized, locked phone or $550 plus $70 per month with an unlocked phone, people are going to choose the subsidized, locked phone. Only recently did the U.S. GSM carriers introduce affordable prepaid smartphone plans that clearly separate the price of the device from the price of the service.
In the beginning of Android Market (now Google Play Store), only a few countries had paid applications. To reach a wide audience, developers had to make their applications free of charge. This set a price expectation of $0.00 among users, and I'm not sure whether this has cleared up even with the expansion of Google Wallet to a larger market.
Perhaps the lesson is that the GNU Project did a good job of bootstrapping its work off proprietary systems when the underlying specifications (POSIX, C, etc.) were well defined. High-production-value games can't as easily be bootstrapped, to the best of my knowledge, because their specifications are not so well defined. And when a game's specs are well defined, you tend to see lawsuits against others reimplementing them (Konami v. Roxor; Tetris v. Xio).
Personally I don't really care about freedom with video games - its not the same as with hardware and drivers. Course, I understand the issue that one day my steam games won't work on my prefered OS, and that'll be a bummer, but right now, from my selfish view point, I'd probably rather just have the games on linux.
However, Valve probably makes more money from publishiing other peoples games than they make on their own, and I feel its not an outright impossibility that the more invested in the platform they become, the may be convinced to open source. This is never going to happen in a market place where they feel their very existance is threatened by Microsoft, EA, Sony, et all. Given a number of years with a strong market precense of Linux gamers spread over a variity of vendors, and I don't see why they couldn't be convinced of the merits** of sharing the code in some form.
Valve loves openess because they're worried that Microsofts closedness will try and squeeze them out of the market come Windows 8 and the future. MS already competes with Steam both with the Xbox and Games for Windows Live. Valve wouldn't be healthy if this was allowed to happen. They want to fracture the gaming community enough so none of the other parties can pull a power play, and so they're not up shit creek if it happens. Because they get to this point though, I doubt they'll open source anything one of these competitors can use to gain parity.
I can't imagine that valve make a great deal from engine sales, but I could be wrong. At this moment in time I suspect the engine and the games they make, only really serve as a draw to their platform, which is steam. Valve are already talking about giving their games away for free, so I doubt protecting the source would have anything more than making sure those games are locked into steam. However, giving the right market conditions (a lack of fear), and considering you'd only be able to get the data files from steam, I think the long term understanding that communities would port their games/steam for free wouldn't sound like a negative prospect. The only (rather large issues) is if they would consider it themselves losing a competitive advantage against the likes of other publishers, and the anti piracy software that doesn't do much, but makes partners feel warm and fuzzy I guess.
Still, I'm probably full of crap, but remember how it goes Embrace, extend and extinguish. The first step is to get them on our platform. :P
Much better would have been simply, Will Steam on Gnu/Linux affect software freedom?
My guess is that headline writers are adapting to Ian Betteridge's observation by phrasing the headline other than as a yes-or-no question.
Steam will do much for software freedom, maybe enough to undo all the harm cause by gaming on Wine. Proprietary Internet marketplace will always be proprietary and large choice of popular games on Linux will spread the use of free software. Also it will bring native ports, something Wine never did (eg; native port that link with native libwine was never use with any success).
to say fuck DRM and fuck Steam. To support DRM is to be on the side of the DMCA, SOPA, the RIAA, the MPAA, the Business Software Alliance, and that whole list of bad laws and bad organizations which support them. If you think you've found a legitimate use, you're probably mistaken. But even if you're not, helping bastards like them do something not-evil is still helping bastards like them.
In terms of software freedom, Steam won't affect much itself. The client is proprietary and as far as I know, every single game featured on Steam is proprietary (although stuff like the iD games can be run using replacement open source engines), but basically it's all one big closed-source pot. It will bring more attention to Linux and maybe some more commercial games, but that's about all.
Now, the only problem I can see is that bringing Steam into Linux will mean another selection of users will becomes used to the idea of DRM (Steam) and having games tied to a single point of failure (Steam), whereas before they were used to having installers that you could backup and install without requiring verification from a third-party. But anyone who's read my posts know I'm beating a dead horse here - I've said it all before about the dangers of keeping all your eggs in one basket, but from what I can tell, games are a special class of software in which this isn't really a concern. It's not crucial or necessary software, so a hypothetical scenario in which you can't play anything due to issues with Steam verification in a longer term scenario don't phase people much.
TL;DR : Steam on Linux will increase Linux's perception in the gaming world, increase its usage base for a bit (at least until some people go back to Windows because it runs some particular tool they didn't realize they needed before throwing away Windows after being swept away in the hype), but it won't do shit for software freedom.
Most people on Slashdot are fucking idiots.
The choice is not "free games or paid games"
The choice is "paid games or no games"
Hard to see where "no games" is a benefit to anyone
RMS probably somewhat inadvertently made a very interesting remark.
He separates the Game Art from the Game Software...
And admits that Game Art could be "non free"...
One of my current activities is designing Gaming Maths, the way the maths are made has a strong impact on the enjoyment (or lack of) any game.
I would argue that the "artistic" as opposed to "software" component is just as great as the artistic component of the graphics.
I also think that there is a fundamental difference in Gaming apps versus Infrastructure or Activity Apps.
If I provide a text processing system or an OS or an Identity management app, all user data trapped into these applications are naturally "content" owned by the user, and it should be normal for the user to be able to share it just as s/he wants.
And it is immoral to force them to be promoter of their software if they want others to be able to read their presentation, or share files, etc...
But Gaming datas are for the most part relevant only in the game, and although some elements like "avatar design" might be usefully standardized, most parts should not been seen or manipulated outside of the game, because it would destroy the interest and artistic integrity of the game.
Having the "freedom" of adding 10000000 flogotz to my flogotz count is meaning less, and if I really want I could just lie about having found the amulet of yendor...
Reading the source code of a game is interesting, but I do believe that the social contract between a game designer and a tool designer is very different, and not just for the game graphics.
Therefore I think RMS can be assurer that at the end Valve opening to Gnu/Linux is not just neutral but a real gain.
And I think that instead avoiding to speak about it, it would be better to explain that:
There are interesting free games that you can use to play and to learn "how it is done"
There are interesting tools like Ogre3D to help you write games.
And there are non free games, it is somewhat frustrating because it might need something you do not have (if you processor is a MIPS it will probably not run), but it is very different from a non free Tool, and you are welcome to it.
And hopefully game designer will work with the various communities to make sure that the coverage is as global as possible, and not just as "economically optimal"....
You want it free, go build it yourself.
That is funny because a lot of us are doing just that. This is the reason why there is so many good free software. Thanks for the laugh, troll harder.
Honestly I don't think without proprietary driver support I would have switched to Linux eight years ago.
Perhaps RMS would be happy to define "successful" free software as an extremely obscure OS used by very few, like Ham-radio-morse-code-hobby few, or less. Meanwhile we have millions who know about Linux exactly because its version of Free doesn't mean shut-down-to-non-free. On that evidence, I think the "goal of freedom" has spread much farther already than it would have.
RMS is an important shit-disturber, but I think he needs to review the years and admit what has gotten traction and what has not. It'll help him make a much more effective message.
If a developer chooses to restrict the choices of his/her users, the user is more than welcome to find another solution to his/her problem, leaving the user in the exact same position as if the software was never developed. The users have had nothing taken from them. (We'll leave software patents out of it, which are separate from copyright; you'll get no argument from me that software patents are a good idea. Most developers of proprietary software hate them just as much as RMS.)
I have no issues whatsoever with the GPL itself. I have no issues with the obligations it puts on distributors and re developers of the software. I DO have issues with the idea that developers should feel morally obligated to use it, or something like it. The developers should be free to choose whatever license he/she wishes, as long as the terms are disclosed to the user prior to purchase.
You already have Tux Racer!
Maybe you'd have a point if unlocked phones were unavailable.
In areas where only CDMA2000 carriers have any sort of reception, unlocked phones are unavailable.
BMWs cost more than Fiats.
I can accept BMW charging extra because a BMW vehicle includes physical things that cost extra to make. Flipping a privilege bit, on the other hand, doesn't cost the carrier extra.
Firstly, the article was written by Richard Stallman himself (you know, the founder of the FSF, and the architect of much of GNU); I would think he would know what its goals are.
Linus's goal is to provide a free core system. The goal of the FSF is to convince the world that proprietary software is bad and should not exist. ("GNU" is a system, and therefore cannot have goals in and of itself.) Please refer to such fine articles like "Why Software Should Not Have Owners" ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html ) or Why Open Source Misses the Point of Free Software ( http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/open-source-misses-the-point.html )
Frankly, I'm surprised that there was some non-trivial number of Slashdot mods equally ignorant of who RMS is and the goals of the FSF.
They become cool pirates instead of uncool nerdy freeloaders ;-)
I've worked for both TI and the games industry all my professional life. With very limited exceptions I'd say Free Software and video games are not really compatible with each other. In fact, most of the time game companies are allergic to openness out of necessity.
The video game industry is tough and fierce. Much of the competitive advantages of any large studio come directly from the propietary technology they develop for their own games or the engines they license to other studios. Unreal Engine is a very good example of this.
Game companies, from the biggest manufacturer to the smallest studio, are plagued with trade secrets, patents, copyrighted code and tools that can't just be combined easily with their open counterparts. I don't see Valve's culture 'infiltrated' anytime soon because of this.
I think it's great for Linux users to be able to play games without having to boot Windows. But that comes with a compromise: not many advanced users install Ubuntu for their primary computer and I really doubt the software components and drivers needed to run Steam will be well supported in any other distro. Fedora, RHEL and Debian, for instance, have a policy of not including proprietary drivers or patent-encumbered software in the installation disc/image. It may be harder for the users of those distros to make it work.
In conclusion, it's a big win for the Linux user community but not so for the Free Software community.
- Otaku no naka no otaku, otaking da!!!
It's strange that free software, which is supposed to have all these advantages over proprietary, is so threatened by something as simple as the availability of some games on Linux.
Steam will be in some repos and not in others, valve will make a double click installer, and the only people who will care will be "freedom zealots" and a few people who chose the wrong distro and have to google how to install steam.
Let me spell out the difference between reimplementing UNIX as GNU and cloning a game more explicitly.
First, POSIX is a published specification. To an extent (though obviously not to the extent that you appear to desire), one can determine what the behavior of each API call is by reading the specification, and the developer of an implementation of POSIX can test existing freely-licensed applications against the implementation. A game, on the other hand, needs its rules reverse-engineered through play because the manual is by no means complete in describing the game's operation. For example, a video game manual doesn't say how fast a player character is allowed to run or how high he can jump.
Second, people are encouraged to reimplement the POSIX APIs. Games not so much, as we see with lawsuits against the author of another game product implementing the same rules.
I'm not interested in software freedom, I'm interested in personal freedom, ie choice. Valve's Steam running on Linux gives me one more choice tomorrow over what I had yesterday. People interested in gaming can use it, people interested in software freedom can ignore it. It's not like Steam is part of the base operating system.
STFU...
...does even playing a game have to be a world shaking ideological decision?
Cripes, I'd sell the whole lot of you out to invading aliens in a heartbeat.
I still don't understand who is he fighting.
I spent money to buy Windows so i could dual-boot and play the games I bought. I'll be more than happy to buy the Linux version of the games i love, even if i have to buy them again.
Act II
Torrents for Linux ports of Steam games exceed volume of MS based torrents. Valve never touches Linux again.
I've recently been put in a position where I've had to do development and administration using solely FOSS software. It's awful. It can be done, and done well, but there are cost systems that make the process much easier and more efficient. From a practical standpoint, I would prefer not to have to use FOSS. I'm being intentionally vague, but suffice it to say that I'm mostly using command line stuff, running CentOS. Most of my time is spent figuring out how to use the environment. Some of that time is spent trying to get a version of Wine running that will let me install Office 2010 so that I can rewrite a manual. Yes, I'm aware of OOo, and I've used it, and it's not capable of doing what I need it to do, frankly.
I'm painting with a broad brush here, and I know it, but my issue with FOSS has and continues to be that there isn't enough attention paid to the UI. It's unnecessarily difficult to do very basic things that users need to do. Installing necessary software (and yes, I'm aware of security considerations), copying and pasting, and basic productivity. I can do all of these things from the command line, and do, but it's faster in a GUI. I'm aware that I'm going to be crucified for this, but Windows does this so much better it's not even funny.
Prior to needing to do all my development on a Linux box, I'd been ambivalent about FOSS; now, I'm sold on paid software, frankly. While the capabilities may be there (and that's arguable), it's still a hobby environment. I can't afford to spend two hours figuring out how to do twenty minutes of development when I also have other responsibilities. I say that to say this: if Steam can bring paid software to Linux, God bless them. Maybe it'll get the Linux communities to start thinking about moving past the dedicated audience and the hobby crowd.
This unbiased moderation brought to you by the Porcine Aviation Group!
what it means for the fsf and the somewhat wacky ideas of Richard stalman.
But i do know that for steam to work on linux without the use of wine and it's window's api emulations Kernel modules will be required to allow the input and graphics snooping that it's anti-cheat system uses.
It might also need a kernel module to have it's own monitored network interface for the same reason.
unless they want to make a desura clone.
http://www.desura.com/
There's open, and there's free. The two are not necessarily the same thing, but many people confuse the two.
A lot of engines have been made "open", with sources that can be made available. In some case they're even free for various types of use, though not for commercial distribution.
I think that the "licensing model works well in this case. Use our engine or even extend it. Play with it for free. Profit from it and share a cut.
As for Fedora, RHEL, and Debian. Yes, they don't "include" proprietary stuff. But it's still not hard to find a .DEB or .RPM file, and in the modern 'nix package managers those are pretty easy to deal with.
I believe Planeshift uses a model in which the core programming aspects of the game are licensed as free software, while the creative/artistic content is still covered by proprietary copyright and not offered up for free redistribution.
By "proprietary software", I was referring to software the user is not authorized to redistribute without payment to the original developer.
RMS is not happy for users to merely receive the source and be allowed to modify it (this is actually a pretty common way for commercial packages to be distributed, such as the original UNIX); his explicit goal is for the user to be able to, in turn, redistribute the software without further monetary payment to the original author. This is a significant distinction.
And since the GNU license allows any purchaser of the software to redistribute the source (and/or compiled binaries) at will, supporting yourself by "selling" the software you've developed isn't a real lucrative business model. RMS supported himself as an employee of the MIT AI lab prior to running the FSF; the emacs tapes were a sideline. There is money in support, but not as much as RMS thinks there is.
I don't see how you, user, can claim any sort of moral authority to do whatever you like with my hard-earned time and effort. (Assuming, of course, my time and effort isn't based on Free software.) You want to write your own software and give it away for free to all and sundry, be my guest. But do not presume that I am under an obligation of any sort to give my product away. If that's a problem for you, you are certainly Free to not use anything I (or other developer of non-Free software) have created.
You can not trust proprietary software all you like and refuse to use it; that's fine by me. Nobody's forcing software on you. Now certainly interop and standards are a big deal, but if a standard requires interop with non-Free products... well, develop your own standard. Linus wanted a UNIX kernel that was Free, so instead of whining about how mean AT&T was, he wrote one.
There are indeed many pragmatic reasons to use the GPL, and as I stated earlier, I have absolutely no issues with it. None. I can see why a developer would choose it, and I think that it's a great tool. I applaud the efforts of those who want to make sure there are viable Linux distributions free of proprietary encumbrances.
Linux "stands for" a Free OS. Nothing more. I don't recall Linus ever stating he didn't want proprietary software to run on top of it.
Computers would not be a commercial product without consumer software. It's just a closed source market place. Sincits only on Ubuntu, if Stallman doesn't like it he can stick to some over-controlled distro OR something he builds nightly while dreaming.
Basically that guy is a hack, free software can exist alongside paid software
Only the choice increasingly, for the list of things that end users expect computers to do in 2012, isn't just about games.
The choice is not "free software or paid software"
The choice is "paid software or no software"
Linux is a reasonable OS (though the GNOME and KDE foibles in recent years have put a very large dent in its reasonableness), but the fact is that for an end user most of the things that one might want to do with a computer can't be done on Linux without much more expense (assuming that labor time has value and that this is equivalent to expense).
Where is the Creative Suite equivalent for the college arts students?
Where is the Garage Sale equivalent for online sellers?
Where is the DevonThink equivalent for information library managers?
Where is the Scrivener equivalent for writers?
Nowhere. And don't give me GIMP, Firefox, PostgreSQL, and OpenOffice as "replacements." Ask the college arts students, online sellers, information library managers, and writers whether they're equivalent. They're not and the claims that they are exemplify the disconnect between open source developers and end users that has existed since the beginning.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
is "substantive freedom," i.e. freedom that actually makes you, the individual, feel more free in your life, given your preferences.
The lack of substantive freedom, which is commonly sacrificed for a kind of de novo freedom, is a thread that runs through all of society right now. With free software you're free to do a lot of things in theory, but in practice (i.e. in your daily life) your range of actual choices/opportunities is actually much smaller with free software than with "un-free" software.
The same thing is happening in our political and economic life. So many are desperate to protect freedoms they never plan to use or will never practically have the opportunity to use, and are willing, in order to protect them, to sacrifice the practical everyday choices and opportunities that they would gain with (say) more regulation, changes in the tax code, increases in public health or safety, etc.
Idealism can be the greatest tyrant of them all when it causes individuals to limit their choices to almost nil in order to preserve theoretical freedoms that they will likely (statistics tell us) never be in a position to use.
STOP . AMERICA . NOW
For freedom to be complete, it has to include the freedom to choose not to be free.
Stasis is death. Embrace change.
If Valve can fix the mess that is audio on linux and make that available to all distros then that in itself would make Steam worthwhile.
1.Will Steam on Linux have a negative impact on your abillity to do whatever you want with the other binaries on your system? Will the DRM (or anti-cheat system) require specific binaries to be validated somehow? (e.g. to prevent attaching gdb to Steam DRM protected binaries or modifying GPU, keyboard and mouse drivers to build an aimbot that feeds events to the game in a way that is indistinguishable from real inputs)
and 2.Will Steam on Linux result in the creation of new devices that restrict user freedom (rumors say that the Linux work is a precursor to a Valve gaming console running Linux. Whether that console would contain restrictions is unknown)
To my mind as a Gentoo user (and someone who is squarely in the Open Source camp) it is acceptable to use proprietary software on a free software OS if no free alternative exists (and in the case of the Valve games, no free alternative is ever going to exist) and where the other option is to use the proprietary software on as proprietary OS. What I dont support is anything that seeks to take away my rights to use the free software I run as I see fit (which is why I have a standing boycott of companies like HTC that continue to violate the GPL by not releasing kernel source for their devices alongside the release of the devices and why I refuse to own any handset that will not allow me to replace the Kernel and root operating system should I choose to do so)
"My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community? Any GNU/Linux distro that comes with software to offer these games will teach users that the point is not freedom. Nonfree software in GNU/Linux distros already works against the goal of freedom. Adding these games to a distro would augment that effect."
How about my freedom not to be overly concerned with what you call "the point"? Eh, Robert? We all appreciate what you've done, but THE POINT is that if it's REALLY about freedom, then we should have the FREEDOM to chose not to be overly concerned with whether or not certain people want to be paid for their work. As long as they're not trying to pay-off government officials to get them to enact laws making it illegal for me to use my computer how I want to use it... protecting a paradigm and business model that computers have rendered obsolete... I am NOT going to worry about it. The problem isn't people exercising their free will to try to buy politicians, it is that our laws are set up to allow and even encourage politicians in our country to take bribes... excuse me, I mean, "campaign donations" in exchange for... excuse me, I mean "obviously not in any kind of exchange for" their allegiance.
The trouble with the idea of losing sleep over whether or not people are producing non-free software that can run natively on a FLOSS platform, is that if the GPL had included text that required any software that runs on it to be GPL'ed too, you'd lose out on the opportunity to use some software that people aren't interested in making for free. If we REALLY have freedom, that includes freedom to do things, and to use software you, Robert M. Stallman, might, not like, or agree with. Otherwise it's not really freedom, it's freedom as long as it's okay with Robert. That's not freedom.
In point of fact, I'm thinking of migrating to FreeBSD for exactly that reason. "Free" as in GPL'ed isn't REALLY free, as in BSD licensed. I am as annoyed as anyone could be, who is not directly involved in the project, that Apple has borrowed so much from the BSD community, and profited from it immensely and given just about NOTHING back, but I'm pleased that they were able to do it, because THAT'S freedom. What the GPL offers is not REALLY freedom, it's restricted in another way. It's like Fristaden Christiania, a hippie commune in Denmark, where the idea was there'd be no laws, and everyone would share and be free. But since this is real life, and not a fairy-tale, they started to have to collect "fees" for things, which were really taxes, because their non-business model turned out to be unsustainable... shocking, I know. But so is imagining Linux can manage to get to be a huge, popular thing without anyone ever producing software for it for money... it's a fantasy. Even the idea that software will run effortlessly on all versions of Linux is turning out to be a bit of a fantasy, since although it might technically be true, the reality is there are many different distributions, dependencies, desktop environments, etc.
So "how will steam on Linux affect software freedom"? Unless it somehow interferes with the distribution of Linux, it won't. If it makes Linux more popular, hey, that's a good thing, right? Anyway, I've rambled enough, time to get back to reading "How to install and maintain FreeBSD"...
For Linux to succeed as a Desktop OS, there needs to be a blend of FOSS and closed source software. Your average user couldn't give a single shit about whether their computer had open source software as long as it just works. But on the other hand, you need some closed source devs to produce such large platforms such as Steam to even get noticed by the general public.
Its a double edged blade...
Good going on not reading the article properly.
Change is certain; progress is not obligatory.
Actually this is a positive step towards getting more professional games onto the linux through steam for now and hopefully in the future game installers will be wrapped around by a packaging manager that will work for all linux distros. Freedom is about choices, options, not about forcing only open source software onto the linux. Linux for the Desktop runs just fine and even better than windows 7 in some areas. I have a phenom ii x6 system and windows 7 freezes when watching flash in firefox or chrome for 1 minute a few times and it goes away if i use anything than the web, i tested all my hardware and it all just fine good shape. Firefox linux is a lot faster than the windows version. But with kubuntu 12.04 it just runs flawlessly on the same hardware on the second partition, no freezes or issues. I remember I had same issue with windows server 2003 on a different amd machine few years ago. It's probably motherboard driver(using windows 7 standard) issue which I can't do anything about since the motherboard manufacturer and amd does not have the northbridge chipset drivers. When my windows 7 is flaking out I just switch over to linux. Right now I'm relying on visual basic 6, visual studio 2010, photoshop, maya, and netflix and not so much for pc games since i'm using emulators(ps2, nes, snes, genesis, gamecube/wii, mame). I will eventually move to linux as primary OS and use win7 in virtual box. Today's linux distros are more reliable and stable than windows xp sp3 and even windows 7 in some instances.
All software that is intended as a permanent architecture should be open source. That is- if you're writing something that isn't just going to be abandoned at a specific point, it should probably be open source, because you have no idea how people in the future will use it. Things like operating systems, drivers, utilities like video players, bittorrent clients, network scanners, etc. But for something like a game, where it really only has one purpose, the only benefit of making it open source is to allow for mods, and most games can do that without releasing the source of their binaries, because there is some internal scripting language. Either way- at one point or another in the future, the game will shut down- and no one will be playing it anymore, so I don't think it makes a big difference if its open soruce or not. But regardless- valve owns the code, and its up to them whether they want it to be open source or not. This doesn't change whether its on windows, linux, or mac. You can't ban closed source programs from an OS, it just doesn't work and isn't realistic to expect all companies to be down with releasing all of their code when there are a lot of companies out there who sell primarily CODE. This situation is analogous to a three ring binder company that expressly forbids manufacturers from putting whole printed books, instead of individual pages, inside their binder. Good luck with that, and why again do you care?
He who espouses facts must be moderated up, unless those facts run contrary to GPL nazi interpretation of software freedom! Down with facts!
linux came about because of folks who just wanted stuff to work
like linus. later, as the hurd continued to flounder, the ideologues
became bourne-again linuxers.
Comment removed based on user account deletion
That's right, nowhere. :)
All we have are multiplayer shooters (no single player, because designing a proper single player experience is hard and doesn't involve programming much), and a few clones of programming heavy genres (wesnoth is heavily inspired by http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Warlords_(game_series) ).
To produce a finished game you need more than a group of bored programmers working in their spare time. Although that sufficed to take over the internet - look at apache
So let's all bid a warm welcome to our new Steam overlords. Especially since we will probably get the linux versions of games we already own for free - as in beer.
I apologize for the lack of a signature.
Because it's linux, it doesn't mean everything should be free. And if you think it should then you're just a cheap-ass lamer. It costs a lot of time to create games and content and also a lot of money, so why should it be free? You don't go to work for free, now do ya?
Actually, they paid for it. And most linux users also paid for it. It is the windows tax :)
Fuck you and your freedom! Do as I say!
The presence of Steam on Linux offers freedom of choice, which is surely the most important freedom of all. The availability of more software does nothing to restrict the software that's already available. Did people decry DeCSS as bringing DRMed material to Linux? Of course not -- it opened choices.
And besides, increased trade will lead to a healthier ecosystem -- it's in Valve's interests that hardware manufacturers provide better Linux support, something which the average Linux user will definitely benefit from.
Got them moderator blues I blieve I walk out the do', With these mod-points I been gettin', I 'most never post no mo'
Comment removed based on user account deletion
I think the bigger issue is the rape of Linux and UNIX by companies like Google and Apple - using the free operating system to build a walled garden. The GPL never anticipated that anyone would take Linux or other free UNIX software, intentionally cripple it, and turn it into a walled garden where software can only be run from "app store" interfaces. The thought never entered into anyone's mind, I don't believe, when the GPL was conceived.
However, why should I feel obligated to abridge my freedom of thought and expression?
Why should the universe be changed just because you feel entitled to get paid for something I don't want to pay for as long as I'm not forcing you to do the work to give me a copy?
Sorry, if they would gladly give back SOMEONE ELSE'S CODE, that would be infringement of someone else's copyright.
So, in what way can they be gladly giving back, but "are unable to make their own code GPL."? Are you saying that someone who owns copyright on code (this is what makes it "their own code") cannot license it as they wish??? Or is it that it isn't their code?
It will die, after M$ brings in their app store/Package manager, no game development company will care about steam any longer.
So after windows' package manager starts working, steam will die.
Steam was just a third party package manager for games anyway.
It's totally not a coincidence that GPLd apps like Busybox and Wordpress and Drupal sue their end-devs just for making non-GPL'd themes and plugins.
That's just unbelievable. And just like the MPAA.
Slashdot Valentines Beta Massacre: iT WORKED! The boycotts killed Beta!!
Shameless plug: http://slashdot.org/submission/2183539/humble-bundle-not-so-trusting-of-people-anymore
Most software is akin to industrial machinery, to make your universal machine (a computer) work like a particular machine.
Games, however, are much closer to culture - like books or novels. Raise your hand if you put a priority on making sure your cultural consumption meets the free cultural works definition. Anyone? ...
So if you want most games to be free software, you have to shift that cultural attitude. Good luck! Let me know how that works out!
http://rocknerd.co.uk
I thought linking issues were resolved with the ABIs aren't copyrightable decision. I could be wrong of course.
Time is what keeps everything from happening all at once.
I'm reminded of the time an image of Hari Seldon flickered to life and gave some important-sounding but ultimately meaningless and irrelevant murmurings to an empty room, as his predictions had long since failed to actually hold true, and now his existence was merely a historical curiosity, though not enough of one for anyone to bother showing up.
"How Will Steam on GNU/Linux Affect Software Freedom?"
It won't. You'll still be free to buy or not buy steam games for Linux.
Just because some people charge money for closed source software that runs on a free operating system, that does not mean you are forced to use that software. It is only when you are forced to used closed software is your freedom impacted.
For years now I've been thinking that the FOSS *nix Community needs to move closer to the vertical models poping up left, right and center with Apple, Google, Amazon and others.
Think about it:
With apt we have a software management tool that technically is/was at least 10 years ahead of the rest. What the FOSS community needs to add now is the ability to easyly transfer money back to the developers through basically the same channels.
Steams strength isn't wether it's FOSS or not and frankly, I don't think anybody will really care. Steams advantage, as with Apple Appstore, Amazon and Google Play is the ability for developers to easyly get some cash for their work.
Right now, within the FOSS community, beyond the odd Paypal Donation Button this isn't possible. This has to change. We need a community driven solution to donating or buying or paying for certain pieces of software or specific features and bugfixes.
My 2 cents.
We suffer more in our imagination than in reality. - Seneca
I get it, you think about freedom (the real one) and Im absolutely good with it. But what good does it do when you have no one to talk to.
This might bring more people to the platform (linux) and more ears to make your speaches to. Yes they use DRM but for once Im totally okay with it because thay have good DRM. Never have I had problems with Valve's DRM, for once I welcome these DRM because they are not punishing those who brought the game, which is the usual way of DRM, it only hinders those who pay, not those who play pirated games. Im totally in the freedom thing and free software and such, but dont please dont hammer down Valve, I might just be able to finally ditch Microsoft from my computer and still have games to play when release Steam Linux.
After ten years of using Linux on the desktop I realize there's two big things that it needs to succeed on the desktop:
1. Some kind of strong incentive to listen to customer demand and implement what ordinary people demand in the way ordinary people demand it. Linux and free software geeks will be extremely unhappy if this ever happens, but the "this is free software so we don't have to listen to users" attitude is one of the biggest things holding GNU/Linux back.
2. A greater openness to corporate investment and an acceptance that most of the software users demand is going to come to Linux either as proprietary and closed source or not at all. I was extremely excited several years ago when apps like Nero started being ported to my platform of choice, only to see the movement pissed on by die-hard Linux fans everywhere who somehow believed that companies were actually going to open source their software and join the great free software utopia they dreamed of creating. Can you say "out of touch with reality"?
In the GNU/Linux community there is a great chasm between reality and the ideology put forth by Stallman and his followers. I no longer think that free software is ever going to be marketable to the masses. The attitude is all wrong and no matter how good it is, it just seems it's never going be to quite what customers demand. I think people will always be willing to pay for something that's made based on what the market demands long before they'll spend their precious time trying to make something work that's made the way some engineer feels like making it in his spare time.
I'm a low-level JVM developer for a large software company. I spend my time working very close to the hardware, hacking OS kernels and tracking the latest changes to interfaces and hardware so that I can best take advantage of new features to make the VM run better. But I'm more and more inclined to let someone else go through the pain of making my personal technology work for me. I very much doubt I'll bother installing Linux on my next new PC or Mac. Now that I'm no longer a poor graduate student the economics just don't work anymore.
In areas where only CDMA2000 carriers have any sort of reception
Would "so don't use a CDMA2000 carrier" be too flippant of a reply?
Yes. As I understand it, there are still parts of the United States not covered by UMTS. Remember Verizon's "There's a map for that" commercial? In such places, not using a CDMA2000 carrier in some parts of the United States means not having decent mobile data at all.
Seriously, if no one bought their service how in the world would they survive?
By selling service to the majority of people, who happen not to care about freedom. That's how video game console makers have survived since 1985.
Right now, Linux is still an "outsider", without much weight in the industry... It's mostly present in a few niches : ...
- web hosting (and sometimes, web development, when Flash and Photoshop are not needed)
- Academic (mostly universities)
- Fanatics
- some places where a centra IT has decided to use it (Munich, French police,...)
The concerns about the UEFI and microsoft key are present because Linux is NOT mainstream enough to make computer vendor worry about Linux becoming unusable on their computers.
By embracing Linux, Steam may open linux to more people. Don't forget that older (DOS) games on steam run through a modified version of Dosbox (which is available on both Linux and Windows), that some game are already OpenGL/X11 ready because a MAC version does exist,...
If Steam move make more people use Linux, it also mean that more people will be using LibreOffice (or OpenOffice) instead of Microsoft Office. It also mean that more people will have a try at The Gimp, Blender, Audacity, Ardour, Pidgin, gcc,...
And don't get it wrong, the people the more likely to make the switch to Linux remain the more computer litterate... People who make be willing to have a look at the "official" web-site of these linux programs that they are using... and discover that the source are available, that contributions are (mostly) welcome,...
You can't force freedom through the troat of someone... the only thing that you may do is show that freedom exists and wait until they long for it enough to go further.
And I don't think that all software has to be free. I think that core software has to. This include OS, wordprocessing (spreadsheet,...), image edition/creation, music creation/listening/... These are the keys to computer world. Games are only content.
Do you mean "unlocked" as in "Able to switch carrier" or "Able to change software"?
Historically, these two unlocks (called "unlock" and "jailbreak" respectively in the iOS hacking community) have been tied together. When most smartphones ran Java ME, Nokia phones purchased directly from Nokia had a lot more privileges available to homemade MIDlets than Nokia phones purchased from a carrier. And later on, Android phones purchased from AT&T had the "Unknown sources" checkbox hidden from the user until AT&T gave in to overwhelming demand for the Amazon Appstore and reenabled the checkbox.
A truly multifunctional device (of course, game consoles are just plain computer and one could do many things with them, but people tend to see the game console as a different species, only good for gaming)
PS3 is marketed as "it only does everything", and it was still marketed as that even after Sony had taken away Other OS. So in light of such marketing, why do people still "see the game console as a different species"?
Let's say there's a piece of GPL code you'd want to use, instead of rolling your own. Now only way to use that piece is to make your entire software GPL
That is rubbish. Provided you don't distribute it outside your company then you don't have to make your own software GPL.
Of course if you do want to distribute it in a proprietary sense so you can make profit out of other peoples work then you can't.
This is good news for linux. A lot of people don't use linux because, surprise, surprise, their games don't run on it (in addition to other software). As Windows starts moving away from desktops to the cloud and tablets, this is a golden opportunity to pick up more people when they realize the cloud isn't the answer to everything and tablets are a niche item.
You're right. I didn't read the article properly, with the approved Stallman interpretation (licensed under the GPL v3+).
But the article doesn't really say much at all. I was referring to the various comments, hand wringing, navel gazing and decrying done by various adherents.
...but there comes a time when you actually need the best possible tools to accomplish a goal. In my case I like making music. I left the proprietary music making software world full time in 2006 when GNU/Linux had finally caught up to where things were back then. I dumped Cakewalk Pro Audio, Adobe Audition, Cubase VST 24 Studio for Ardour, Rosegarden, Hydrogen, Alsa Modular Synth, LinuxSampler, and QSynth. In general, I was able to do all of the same stuff without much extra effort. In general it's all about templates anyway, so you set up your templates for how you work in these new apps and it really isn't much different. But then I decided late last year to look at what was happening on Mac and Windows and just in the short five/six years I've been away, things have changed drastically. There are much better products and many developers have dropped their prices. It's much easier to get music made with other software and I don't see the Linux apps catching up quite yet. In fact I'm seeing more stagnation thanks to Ubuntu taking over on most development. They are ignoring the applications I used or even dropping them from the repositories.
Yes I can still move to a different distro and build things from source, but that takes away from the time I have to actually make music. So I'm not sure what to do now. The lure of really easy, appealing and efficient tools (that don't all work in WINE and don't play nice with the DSSI plugins like vestige and festige) is pretty strong. And the prices aren't as bad anymore. So as much I as I really want to support freedom, I don't want to have to wait another five to ten years to be able to do what others are doing now on proprietary platforms. Therein lies the rub. Steam releasing on GNU/Linux will provide people with easy access to what they want with no waiting. That's a good thing from the perspective of a PC actually serving a purpose. It's a bad thing in terms of supporting freedom. I don't know where you go with that.
-"...bad old ideas look confusingly fresh when they are packaged as technology" - Jaron Lanier (Digital Maoism on Edge.o
there's plenty of pay to play software in the ubuntu software center (well, not only games ofcourse) already, just as there is quite the amount of free to play games available on steam (something you don't get on xbla, i can't speak for psn). You can hardly deny someone the right to ask money for their stuff, it's up to them to make it better so someone wants to pay for it imo
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
Hmm, this leads me to wonder, what happens when GPL software is used in a company's internal systems and installed into company PCs, and then there's a spin-off or other splitting. Now the parent company needs to essentially distribute the software to the spin-off, and can do so only under the GPL, essentially giving the spin-off, which is now a separate legal entity, all the rights granted by GPL... Or they can not distribute the software to the spin-off, which might be problematic if it's a mission-critical application. Of course this is no problem as long as same people decide what spin-off does with the GPL-licensed software it received from parent company, but generally spin-offs might get sold, and new owners might decide to take advantage of the now-GPL internal software of the original company.
Conclusion: if it's a mission-critical (or just important) application for company internal use, which you're not willing to make public later on, or which uses other components which have GPL-incompatible license, do not use GPLed software components in it. What starts as internal use, allowed by GPL, may turn into distribution.
A users ability to run a piece of software can't be taken if he/she never had it to begin with.
If no similar product exists and the user doesn't want to accept my terms? Tough $hit.
My, my, how short memories are. Do you not remember the YEARS IBM fought the SCO litigation, which was about how evil IBM was for contributing to Linux? (And the suit is still ongoing, but it's now a stupid contract dispute, as Novell pre-empted the original claims due to SCOs contract language.)
And IBM has consistently pledged not to use it's patent portfolio against Linux and all of their contributions have been under the GPL, just like the rest of the kernel.
Who's asking you to abridge your freedom of thought and expression? All I'm saying is that if you want a copy of my work (and/or want to distribute it to others) you are going to have to pay me for it.
It's cleaner.
You Americans idolize stupidity so much, you buy your mobile phones from cellular phone service providers and consider it normal.
That's because a contract smartphone costs $350 less than a no-contract smartphone, and until very recently, the service for a no-contract smartphone wasn't $350 cheaper to make up for it. This sort of freedom isn't worth $350 to any phone customer other than a hardcore geek, and hardcore geeks are an edge case.