Page 3 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 21 to 30 of 48

Thread: Valve Joins The Linux Foundation

  1. #21

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    Yes.

    There. You've nailed it. Congratulations.
    You see, now we are now longer dependent on the inferior OS which costs money.


    And by the way, this may come as a shock, but most "normal" end users who are interested in the GPU, are only interested in the driver software that comes from, or is recommended by, its vendor. Be it open source like in Intel's case or fully proprietary like Nvidia's, that doesn't matter at all for the folks who just want a product that is guaranteed (by its vendor) to actually work.
    I concur.

    I dont' want to buy an OS with virus scanners and anti-spyware and inferior security from the very foundations (and the multitude of bloatware bolted on to Windows to make it run like Linux); just to play games that I DO want to buy. I just want it to work, and perform well if not do greatness harnessing what the linux kernel can do.

    I am not alone with this mentality; I would suspect we are the majority amongst the users of Linux.

  2. #22
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Posts
    230

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    <sarcasm> So you will replace windows by a steam blob, running game blobs, with blob drivers running on top of an open source kernel, whoo-hoo! Open source ala valve bitches!
    Yep pretty much. Most of the system libs etc are free and open source and I have far greater control and freedom (if I choose to use it) of what goes on at the nuts and bolts level than I would on Windows.

    Even Richard Stallman conceded it's better to have people coming across from Windows and playing Steam-based games on Linux than not.
    Last edited by ElderSnake; 12-04-2013 at 08:41 PM.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    6

    Default

    To the Stallman parrots:

    The free software debate is one to be had by software creators, not users. As far as users are concerned, the software's value is determined by how productive, or in the case of gaming, entertaining it is. Users don't really care about the licensing of the software or the availability of it's source, and should not have to. For most linux fans, the free as in freedom aspect of the system is not it's prime attraction, it is the flexibility of Linux distributions opposed to windows or mac, a feature that has nothing to do with software licensing.

    The fact is most free software projects advertise the fact that they're free, losing the attention of users who neither know nor care what that means. Firefox didn't spread because it is free, it spread because it is a competitive product.

    Advocacy to users does a lot more harm than good to the free software cause. Instead of being that friendly person who wants to save them from their proprietary jails, in their eyes you're that douchebag working his agenda into every conversation, because let's face it, free or not, regular users won't directly feel the effects of a world with free software. Unless you're dealing with code, software freedom is not a visible thing.

    Steam on Linux makes Linux a more attractive means that it's a step in the direction of users thinking about it as a real alternative to windows, not just that thing their nerd friends use for some reason.

    As long as free software remains inferior to proprietary software in the eyes of users, no amount of lobbying will convince them to use it, so stop treating freedom as a feature that should be present in all software users should look for. It is a fundamental property that all software should possess. We shouldn't be fighting to maximize free software users, we shoud be fighting for a world where I can use any piece of software and reasonably expect to be able to use, examine, modify and redistribute it without restriction, a world where it is a legitimate surprise if I can't. Developers, especially those building apps for the average joe, are the only ones that can make this happen and once they learn to advertise the quality of their product over licensing when going free will they realize how little the average joe cares, and how much better it is for them.

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Amsterdam
    Posts
    295

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by ElderSnake View Post
    Yep pretty much. Most of the system libs etc are free and open source and I have far greater control and freedom (if I choose to use it) of what goes on at the nuts and bolts level than I would on Windows.

    Even Richard Stallman conceded it's better to have people coming across from Windows and playing Steam-based games on Linux than not.
    Exactly, even Stallman is not as blind as some of the fanatics here.

    free as in freedom not as in free beer.

    So if I want to run proprietary software its my choice.

    The best news for me in years, was steam coming to Linux.

    All Linux users already have better vid drivers because of it, but still they whine, even now Valve is contributing to Linux.

  5. #25
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    2,162

    Default


  6. #26
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by M1kkko View Post
    Yes.

    There. You've nailed it. Congratulations.
    You see, now we are now longer dependent on the inferior OS which costs money.


    And by the way, this may come as a shock, but most "normal" end users who are interested in the GPU, are only interested in the driver software that comes from, or is recommended by, its vendor. Be it open source like in Intel's case or fully proprietary like Nvidia's, that doesn't matter at all for the folks who just want a product that is guaranteed (by its vendor) to actually work.
    First, I'll answer the quoted guy: you do not need to even touch Steam. However, money will flow from the company behind it to OPEN SOURCE, FREE, GPL technologies in the kernel you use. That is not bad at all, period.

    Then, to you, this is all too beautiful and all, but it is completely irrelevant to the point of free software. People who just wants things that work for free have nothing to do with free software, and they don't care about it and people wanting free software don't care about them. They are disjoint groups, and it is alright, but your point is completely irrelevant to what the quoted guy is talking about, as he talks about free software, not about freeware.

  7. #27
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Posts
    1,287

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by bayan.r View Post
    To the Stallman parrots:

    The free software debate is one to be had by software creators, not users. As far as users are concerned, the software's value is determined by how productive, or in the case of gaming, entertaining it is. Users don't really care about the licensing of the software or the availability of it's source, and should not have to. For most linux fans, the free as in freedom aspect of the system is not it's prime attraction, it is the flexibility of Linux distributions opposed to windows or mac, a feature that has nothing to do with software licensing.
    Pretty much wrong. Users don't care, and do not have to care, about source code licensing, as this is pretty much useless if you do not read it. But the binaries comes with a license, too, and they care and should care about the conditions to use it. It is not the same to have a software you can use any way you want than a software you can only use on a given platform (even if you could run it without problems in other platforms, for example, MacOS X should be able to run on any AMD64 hardware, but the license binds you to use an Apple computer). Some Linux users might want to use MacOS X, as it is a decent OS, but don't want the hardware lock it implies, for example.

    Unless you're dealing with code, software freedom is not a visible thing.
    Partially agree. Again, some of the freedoms are not visible for a non-dev user, but some other are.

    Steam on Linux makes Linux a more attractive means that it's a step in the direction of users thinking about it as a real alternative to windows, not just that thing their nerd friends use for some reason.

    As long as free software remains inferior to proprietary software in the eyes of users, no amount of lobbying will convince them to use it, so stop treating freedom as a feature that should be present in all software users should look for. It is a fundamental property that all software should possess. We shouldn't be fighting to maximize free software users, we shoud be fighting for a world where I can use any piece of software and reasonably expect to be able to use, examine, modify and redistribute it without restriction, a world where it is a legitimate surprise if I can't. Developers, especially those building apps for the average joe, are the only ones that can make this happen and once they learn to advertise the quality of their product over licensing when going free will they realize how little the average joe cares, and how much better it is for them.
    I agree.

  8. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2013
    Posts
    46

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    <sarcasm> So you will replace windows by a steam blob, running game blobs, with blob drivers running on top of an open source kernel, whoo-hoo! Open source ala valve bitches!
    First up, replacing Windows with binary games is by far better than running the exact same games on Windows. Is it more free to run a proprietary game on linux or is it more free to run a proprietary game on Windows? FOSS people say free as in freedom, so if certain aspects of freedom aren't really relevant to the user, the user may of course forfeit that specific freedom(in this case the "modify" and "derive" freedom, if you can modify the game then you can cheat), that's the user's choice, and it's the user's freedom to forfeit certain aspects of his own freedom. Why fight for something you don't need?(and that'd be a waste of resource to fight for something that doesn't really matter to you) Of course I'm talking about users here. There still are people who are practically restricted by that, like developers wanting to fork the games, but it'd not make any difference. Now steam came to linux, and the people can't fork the games. If steam didn't come to linux, people can't fork it too. No difference. The real difference is that Linux is going so get more attention, more users, more support, and the new game market will boost linux GPU driver development, not only of proprietary ones, but also free ones. (they now have more testing platforms, and also have more attention and more urge/obligation to make the drivers better). And for your information, I don't personally use steam.

    Seconds, nobody said you'll need blob drivers. If you use Intel or AMD GPU you most likely dont need that. You'd need blob drivers if you use Nvidia, but then again, does it affect anyone? Run blob drivers or not, Nouveau devs still cant get their hands on the source code either way. And if Nvidia didn't release these blobs the Nouveau devs would have even less breadcrumb.

  9. #29
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    522

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by busukxuan View Post
    First up, replacing Windows with binary games is by far better than running the exact same games on Windows. Is it more free to run a proprietary game on linux or is it more free to run a proprietary game on Windows? FOSS people say free as in freedom, so if certain aspects of freedom aren't really relevant to the user, the user may of course forfeit that specific freedom(in this case the "modify" and "derive" freedom, if you can modify the game then you can cheat), that's the user's choice, and it's the user's freedom to forfeit certain aspects of his own freedom. Why fight for something you don't need?(and that'd be a waste of resource to fight for something that doesn't really matter to you) Of course I'm talking about users here. There still are people who are practically restricted by that, like developers wanting to fork the games, but it'd not make any difference. Now steam came to linux, and the people can't fork the games. If steam didn't come to linux, people can't fork it too. No difference. The real difference is that Linux is going so get more attention, more users, more support, and the new game market will boost linux GPU driver development, not only of proprietary ones, but also free ones. (they now have more testing platforms, and also have more attention and more urge/obligation to make the drivers better). And for your information, I don't personally use steam.

    Seconds, nobody said you'll need blob drivers. If you use Intel or AMD GPU you most likely dont need that. You'd need blob drivers if you use Nvidia, but then again, does it affect anyone? Run blob drivers or not, Nouveau devs still cant get their hands on the source code either way. And if Nvidia didn't release these blobs the Nouveau devs would have even less breadcrumb.
    Try to be a bit more realistic. Already from the comments here it is obvious that the so called linux user doesn't give crap about open source as long as it is free for him to use... Thus I am quite sure the majority will be running blob drivers (except for intel, but then you don't really want to game on intel gpus). I guess the steam defenders here would be quite happy even if the kernel was a blob. Why should they care, right?

    So in the end, what is the point of using linux for steam? Just the convenience to not have to boot into windows for gaming?

    And sorry, but I don't buy the positive effects on foss story. What positive effects have been there by google using linux kernel for android? A dozen more blob drivers?
    Last edited by log0; 12-05-2013 at 06:38 AM. Reason: fix a few typos

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Posts
    164

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by log0 View Post
    Try to be a bit more realistic. Already from the comments here it is obvious that the so called linux user doesn't give crap about open source as long as it is free for him to use... Thus I am quite sure the majority will be running blob drivers (except for intel, but then you don't really want to game on intel gpus). I guess the steam defenders here would be quite happy even if the kernel was a blob. Why should they care, right?

    So in the end, what is the point of using linux for steam? Just the convenience to not have to boot into widows for gaming?

    And sorry, but I don't buy the positive effects on foss story. What positive effects have been there by google using linux kernel for android? A dozen more blob drivers?

    Greater power efficiency is one that I remember Torvalds mentioning, due to mobile devices requirement, which also come to be useful for server and laptop.

Posting Permissions

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