Page 1 of 13 12311 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 124

Thread: Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Posts
    13,394

    Default Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

    Phoronix: Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

    Richard Stallman has commented on Valve's plans to bring their games/software to Linux. Of course, he isn't happy about more non-free software coming to Linux...

    http://www.phoronix.com/vr.php?view=MTE0OTQ

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

    We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    189

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

    We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.
    That's just not true. What Stallman believes in is that software should be free (as in freedom), period. He even acknowledges in his blog post that game artwork is a different story.

    Edit: on the other hand, I really have no idea what he thinks about the soviet union or communism, so I can't really speak for him.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Posts
    212

    Default The biggest problem with GPL is Stalman

    This just highlights how stupid this guy can be! Many of these games take substantial amounts of cash to develop and as such the developers have no chance of paying the bills if they don't use some sort of rights management. In fact if people tried to take Stalmans advice there wouldn't be a games industry at all.

    In any event im happy that the concept of open source is wide enough that many license can fill a developers needs. Frankly I can not see any wisdom at all in offering software with a GPL license attached. One doesn't want to be associated with such lunacy.

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Location
    Greece
    Posts
    3,762

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    That's just not true. What Stallman believes in is that software should be free (as in freedom), period.
    So did the Soviet Union. It needs to be free for the people. As in freedom.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    353

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RealNC View Post
    In the Soviet Union, everything was required to be in the Public Domain, and your work could not be considered private property.

    We don't live in the Soviet Union. Stallman wishes we did. Too bad for him.
    I really don't think free software can equate to communism... personally I believe free software equates to computer science rather than the other way of doing things which to me equates to computer magic....

  7. #7
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Some people use Linux for its open source mentality, some people use Linux cause they think it is just a better operating system. Everyone uses Linux for different reasons. Is Steam bad or good for Linux? Who care's.. it's all about choice. No one is making anyone download Steam, it is the users choice. If you don't like don't install it.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    1

    Default

    If Stallman really want to give freedom to users, then he should not be against any nonfree software. If freedom is primary value then users have right to choose if they want to use nonfree software or not. Moreover they can choose if they want to follow Stallman's philosophy or not. Therefore Stallman would be contradicting his own beliefs by speaking against Valve on linux. Right now he did that only partially, but I belive that this man has unlimited potential to be as incoherent as it is only possible.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    19

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by otikscypi View Post
    If Stallman really want to give freedom to users, then he should not be against any nonfree software. If freedom is primary value then users have right to choose if they want to use nonfree software or not. Moreover they can choose if they want to follow Stallman's philosophy or not. Therefore Stallman would be contradicting his own beliefs by speaking against Valve on linux. Right now he did that only partially, but I belive that this man has unlimited potential to be as incoherent as it is only possible.
    I agree isn't Freedom realistically about choice.

  10. #10
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    118

    Default

    Stallman isn't stupid, he's just a zealot. The fact is though, his opinions are consistant and have a lot of merit, and just because the rest of us are pragmatic, doesn't mean he's wrong. In fact, he's likely smarter than me or you due to his consistency, as he obviously has a strong understanding on his viewpoints, and isn't easily swayed be desires or emotions. Our community needs people like him, and whilst you don't need to agree with everything he says or does, he deserves some amount of respect.

    Fact of the matter is, you buy steam games, Valve dies, you won't be able to play those games. Even if Valve doesn't die, once computer hardware and operating systems move beyond their current stage, you'll have a lot of problems running your current x86 games. I suspect steam will try to keep these alive for as long as possible, but at some stage it just won't work anymore. This is what he's warning you about, and whilst I trust Valve a great deal more than many companies, its an issue that will come about at some time in the future, even if its a long time after I stopped caring about my games, he is right, 100% so. If I'm honest, I've always agreed with this viewpoint, but I'm a lover of good games, and valve has bribed me with awesome service, quality games, and sales.

    I believe he also suggests that Steam may bring move positives to the platform than it'll harm it. In a way he's being pragmatic. Personally I agree with his opinions, especially when it comes to the core OS and the hardware specs/drivers. I even generally prefer open source software unless the proprietary stuff is far superior. Again, in this sphere games are somewhat of an expection for me; most games are consumed for a while then left in the dust. Its more about the experience, the story, and the gameplay, than underlying technologies. Once you're done, you're mostly done, and I've always been fairly happy with that. I suspect others don't share my view point, but thats fine - I just like to consume many games. I'd prefer if their engines were open source, but in reality if the choice is between no game, and a closed game, I'll pick the latter.

    Its a big double standard, but we should reward valve (and anyone else) for supporting our platform too. They're doing a lot better than the majority of big vendors, but that doesn't mean we need to stop making the case for the source engine to become the open source engine in the future, hell I suspect it'd support Valves buisness model to do such a thing (because presumably those games would be easily integreated with steam, and thus probably sold there). I'd prefer to see an open source steam client, but that may be something they'd never resonably be able to do because of the DRM. Either way, the first step is get them here. If its a success, you never know.

    If Stallman really want to give freedom to users, then he should not be against any nonfree software. If freedom is primary value then users have right to choose if they want to use nonfree software or not. Moreover they can choose if they want to follow Stallman's philosophy or not. Therefore Stallman would be contradicting his own beliefs by speaking against Valve on linux. Right now he did that only partially, but I belive that this man has unlimited potential to be as incoherent as it is only possible.
    He doesn't take your freedom to choose non-free software away from you, he just suggests that using it would be a bad idea to use it. Everyone is free to choose, he just believes you're making the wrong choice. Also, his freedom is about the users freedom, not commerical freedom. You can morally argue that you should have the right to modify and use the hardware and software you bought in the way you want. I can't see the moral argument that you should be allowed to make money on code you downloaded by restricting the freedom of your users. The problem is, most users just accept the status quo, and don't really realise that it is actually BS their printer will not work with W7, and XP will quickly becoming a non-viable OS choice in the near future. He does not restrict your choice here, but he does have a point. You shouldn't need to buy new hardware because the company you bought from refuses to support your current hardware anymore and makes it near impossible for you to support it yourself.

    The same argument works for games. What if come window 8, steam refuses to support any of your games? Sure you'll continue to use Win7, but what if Microsoft refuses to continue to release patches for Win7? You quickly enter a laughable scenario where you've lost your games because your OS is no longer really safe to use on the Internet. In theory the market will correct this, but lets say few people agree with you? Bye bye list of games. Like I said, he has a point. Doesn't mean you need to go without, but at least you know what you're letting yourself in for.
    Last edited by ownagefool; 07-29-2012 at 09:04 PM.

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •