Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #16
    rms contradicts himself, or something...

    RMS wrote emacs (the modern one that runs on Linux, not the old ones that ran on Multics and ITS) on HPUX, and he used the proprietary HP C compiler, and the proprietary HP linker, to produce his free software that originally ran only on proprietary operating systems.

    He says that it is okay for free software to ride on the coattails of proprietary software and take advantage of proprietary technology because it works toward the goals of free software.

    And here we have Valve announcing that they want to host their proprietary software on a free operating system. In exchange for the privilege, they promise to help diagnose and fix Linux bugs, and to make suggestions on what can be done to Linux to make it a better platform.

    We have here a vendor who is willing to make contributions to Linux and is ALSO taking considerable risk by bringing their software catalog to the platform, and RMS is going to talk trash about them???

    And recently we had to be subjected to Linus Torvalds lambasting Nvidia because they have the unmitigated gall to treat all of their customers in the same manner.

    Is there something in the water or what?

    Or maybe RMS, Linus and Mitt Romney have the same PR advisor???
    Last edited by frantaylor; 07-29-2012, 09:58 PM.

    Comment


    • #17
      Linux/gnu is not just an OS, this is a cult you are joining. It is a way of life. You must study the FOSS philosophy, and then go around and spread it to others, trying to convert them and save them. Any software that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. There are our demands, and it is in the best interest of corporations to join us, or face the consequences.


      amidoinitrite?

      Comment


      • #18
        Originally posted by boast View Post
        Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted.
        Unless it actually manages to accomplish some sort of useful purpose, in which case we will look the other way.

        Comment


        • #19
          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
          RMS wrote emacs (the modern one that runs on Linux, not the old ones that ran on Multics and ITS) on HPUX, and he used the proprietary HP C compiler, and the proprietary HP linker, to produce his free software that originally ran only on proprietary operating systems.

          He says that it is okay for free software to ride on the coattails of proprietary software and take advantage of proprietary technology because it works toward the goals of free software.
          so above you use an example of software created when their was no OSS tools (essentially) at all. Obviously, he would be leveraging proprietary software and keeping his goals in mind.

          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
          And here we have Valve announcing that they want to host their proprietary software on a free operating system. In exchange for the privilege, they promise to help diagnose and fix Linux bugs, and to make suggestions on what can be done to Linux to make it a better platform.

          We have here a vendor who is willing to make contributions to Linux and is ALSO taking considerable risk by bringing their software catalog to the platform, and RMS is going to talk trash about them???
          I've read the article and i don't see him trash Valve, in any way in that article. He does say;

          Originally posted by RMS
          Nonfree game programs (like other nonfree programs) are unethical because they deny freedom to their users. (Game art is a different issue, because it isn't software.) If you want freedom, one requisite for it is not having nonfree programs on your computer. That much is clear.

          However, if you're going to use these games, you're better off using them on GNU/Linux rather than on Microsoft Windows. At least you avoid the harm to your freedom that Windows would do.
          but that isn't trashing Valve, but instead pointing out RMS's own beliefs that nonfree stuff is unethical. he then goes on to say and consider the advantages and possible disadvantages of a company like this coming to Linux, and asking a few ethical questions in his post... did you even read the article before making this post???

          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
          And recently we had to be subjected to Linus Torvalds lambasting Nvidia because they have the unmitigated gall to treat all of their customers in the same manner.
          How is this (RMS) situation the same as Linus publicly telling Nvidia to essentially fuck themselves for being so difficult to work with, exactly???

          Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
          Is there something in the water or what?

          Or maybe RMS, Linus and Mitt Romney have the same PR advisor???
          Well, Linus has done this kind of thing for years and years.... RMS has always had a big stance against nonfree software, hence why he created GPL and GNU.

          ...and who gives a crap about Mitt Romney? - a US politician whom has nothing to do with software / FOSS / or linux

          Comment


          • #20
            Originally posted by boast View Post
            Linux/gnu is not just an OS, this is a cult you are joining. It is a way of life. You must study the FOSS philosophy, and then go around and spread it to others, trying to convert them and save them. Any software that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. Any hardware that does not adhere to the FOSS philosophy will be considered evil and boycotted. There are our demands, and it is in the best interest of corporations to join us, or face the consequences.


            amidoinitrite?
            Cults usually involve a sexual element in some way. And Stallman? Oh good god that's just gross.

            Comment


            • #21
              Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
              Fact of the matter is, you buy steam games, Valve dies, you won't be able to play those games.

              You can't buy games from steam, you only subscribe to their service. So basically you are renting licenses from Valve to play games and they can terminate your subscribtion at any time they choose to.

              Comment


              • #22
                Originally posted by ninez View Post
                so above you use an example of software created when their was no OSS tools (essentially) at all. Obviously, he would be leveraging proprietary software
                Obviously he could ALSO have started by writing his own assembler in machine code and worked up from there JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES

                If he was REALLY as "pure" about "intellectual property" as he claims to be then he would not have started out by writing a text editor that needed a proprietary compiler to compile and a proprietary operating system to run on.

                But NO he chose the PRAGMATIC approach and then he turns around and chews out people for making the SAME pragmatic choices HE did.
                Last edited by frantaylor; 07-29-2012, 11:05 PM.

                Comment


                • #23
                  Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                  Obviously he could ALSO have started by writing his own assembler in machine code and worked up from there JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES

                  If he was REALLY as "pure" about "intellectual property" as he claims to be then he would not have started out by writing a text editor that needed a proprietary compiler to compile and a proprietary operating system to run on.

                  But NO he chose the PRAGMATIC approach and then he turns around and chews out people for making the SAME pragmatic choices HE did.
                  And as far as Nvidia goes: can you tell Nvidia's people with certainty that their investment in writing Linux drivers is going to be profitable for them? Can you make the business case? If you can't make a valid argument that Nvidia will profit from this venture then it's NO SURPRISE that Nvidia is not interested.

                  If you can't parse the Mitt Romney reference, too bad on you. Is it politics to say that Washington had wooden teeth?
                  Last edited by frantaylor; 07-29-2012, 11:10 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #24
                    In a perfect world, Stallman's views would be considered quite logical and the only way to conduct business. I can see where he's coming from and why he's so adamant about it.

                    Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, so for now, we have to make due with this kludge of free/non-free software. Perhaps one day we will reach Stallman's vision (maybe with the accomplishment of A.I. and later on Singularity, who knows?).

                    Comment


                    • #25
                      Originally posted by 1c3d0g View Post
                      In a perfect world, Stallman's views would be considered quite logical and the only way to conduct business. I can see where he's coming from and why he's so adamant about it.

                      Unfortunately, we live in an imperfect world, so for now, we have to make due with this kludge of free/non-free software. Perhaps one day we will reach Stallman's vision (maybe with the accomplishment of A.I. and later on Singularity, who knows?).
                      I think his goals are inconsistent and illogical.

                      They may be self-consistent and logical when examined by itself, but they fail when applied to our universe, populated as it is with human beings that do not think and act according to his wishes.

                      The simple fact is that intellectual progress is also accompanied by proprietary intellectual property. In many cases there is no incentive to innovate unless there is the capability to hide information from others.

                      It's not just in software. We do not get to see the failed works of art, they are destroyed by the author. So when the artist displays his latest masterpiece, it is basically "closed source" because we are not privy to any of the design work that went into the masterpiece. Other artists cannot benefit from seeing the learning process.

                      This is just as terrible and just as detrimental as closed source software, and yet nobody is clamoring for artists to release their sketchbooks or for painters to snap photos of their experiements before they put them in the trash.

                      Comment


                      • #26
                        no computers

                        The biggest problem with RMS's ideal, is that his world would have no computers to run the free software.

                        Who would be able to muster the resources to assemble such a large and complex device, without some sort of assurance of success? What banker would back a project whose resources could be freely copied by anyone?

                        What company would expend resources to make a better video card or faster memory if their competitors could freely copy it?

                        Comment


                        • #27
                          Originally posted by Rotgut View Post
                          You can't buy games from steam, you only subscribe to their service. So basically you are renting licenses from Valve to play games and they can terminate your subscribtion at any time they choose to.
                          I'm European, so no, thats not true.

                          Comment


                          • #28
                            Tools may be free. The quality of service differentiates group/individuals from other. That is how Red Hat succeeded to be the first FOSS company to reach billions. Tools may have identical specification, the quality of build and compilation make one of them stand out. There is an adage stating that something can be imitated but never fully duplicate in term of success.

                            Comment


                            • #29
                              Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                              The biggest problem with RMS's ideal, is that his world would have no computers to run the free software.

                              Who would be able to muster the resources to assemble such a large and complex device, without some sort of assurance of success? What banker would back a project whose resources could be freely copied by anyone?

                              What company would expend resources to make a better video card or faster memory if their competitors could freely copy it?
                              RMS doesn't care about the hardware being free, just the software.

                              http://www.zdnet.com/blog/open-sourc...-arrived/10692

                              Seriously, Phoronix is nuts. Is everyone here a MS troll? :/

                              Comment


                              • #30
                                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                                Obviously he could ALSO have started by writing his own assembler in machine code and worked up from there JUST LIKE EVERYONE ELSE DOES

                                If he was REALLY as "pure" about "intellectual property" as he claims to be then he would not have started out by writing a text editor that needed a proprietary compiler to compile and a proprietary operating system to run on.
                                1st. Who is this 'everyone else'? can you name some, please?

                                2nd. I'm sorry but life doesn't always play out the way you think it should have. I may be wrong, but if i remember correctly - he wrote a text editor first because he wanted a better tool to code with, and wasn't happy with existing tools. You also have to consider that he was working/using proprietary hardware/software ~ which was essentially all there was available at the time. As far as i am concerned a text-editor is as valid as a starting place, as any (within reason anyway, logically speaking). - but feel free to explain why you think it is such a bad place to start, when you plan on writing a lot of code, but don't like the tools you have to write them with...

                                I'm not a big RMS fan - as he is a bit to extreme for me. But i do appreciate what he has done, and (some) of his perspectives.

                                Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                                But NO he chose the PRAGMATIC approach and then he turns around and chews out people for making the SAME pragmatic choices HE did.
                                He had little choice in choosing the pragmatic approach, given the history and situation at the time ~ and he didn't 'chew' anyone out in that post. that's twice now that you have claimed that article says things it does not. why do you keep doing that? it's very strange, are you just trying to flame?

                                Originally posted by RMS
                                Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm and good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux. 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?
                                Wow. that isn't pragmatic at all - recognizing that this will likely do more good than harm. While yes, also being concerned about the negative effects it might have. ~ both hypothesizing and posing questions...

                                Originally posted by RMS
                                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.
                                then he goes on to talk of what this might teach users, and how non-free software works against software freedom, which in some ways is true and totally valid. you don't know what nonfree apps are doing on your machine and they also can interfere with software development.

                                Then in his very last sentence he says;

                                Originally posted by RMS
                                If you want to promote freedom, please take care not to talk about the availability of these games on GNU/Linux as support for our cause. Instead you could tell people about the Liberated Pixel Cup free game contest, the Free Game Dev Forum, and the LibrePlanet Gaming Collective's free gaming night.
                                ..so he believes that if you truly want to promote freedom, not to promote these games. RMS doesn't use nonfree software in his computers at all (which obviously wasn't always the case, nor even possible way back when - but now, essentially is depending on what you do with a computer), that is his choice and from his perspective (and those whom share it) it probably doesn't make sense to promote any proprietary software, as they feel it is bad. - i'm not saying i necessarily agree, since i enjoy using some of the nonfree software that i use both at home and work on my linux machines / mac.

                                but again, he isn't 'chewing' anyone out, nor 'trashing' Valve. All he has done here is share his perspective on Valve coming to linux, and his view of nonfree software.
                                Last edited by ninez; 07-30-2012, 12:00 AM.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X