Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

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

  • #31
    It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.

    Comment


    • #32
      Originally posted by FreeBooteR69 View Post
      It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.
      +1

      LOL. very true

      Comment


      • #33
        RMS simply fails to realize that non-free software is *not* unethical. You can't accuse others of being unethical just because they create something that doesn't suit your own needs.

        Proprietary software is perfectly ethical and there's nothing wrong with it. Business practices of software vendors can be unethical (like Microsoft). Some EULAs can be unethical (like Microsoft and Apple.) But non-open/non-free software just by itself is not unethical.

        Comment


        • #34
          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 agree. When I read what he said, communism was the first thing that came to mind.
          Great ideal, but what's wrong with intellectual property? There are obvious reasons for wanting a OS, core applications, and drivers open and free but games not so much.

          Comment


          • #35
            Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
            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? :/
            What about the firmware on the cards? It's not free software, it's 100% proprietary.

            He has no problem with this firmware if the manufacturer decides to burn the firmware into the device. However if the manufacturer instead decides to download the firmware at boot time, well that's a 100% DIFFERENT STORY for some reason that I really just can't fathom.

            WHY is it that RMS doesn't care about proprietary hardware and yet they get all in a stink if the hardware manufacturer decides to make a good design decision?

            Again I say that RMS's goals are in conflict with reality as we know it.

            It JUST SO HAPPENS that I am a BIG fan of Linux and free software. I don't know RMS personally but we have met. We travel in the same social circles and we have dated the same girls. I was offered a job by the FSF but I turned it down. I've been getting paid to write linux software since 0.99pl13. Please don't accuse me of being a MS troll.

            Tell us more about why Phoronix is nuts because there are people who ask questions. Yes indeed really we should just all bow down and accept unthinkingly.

            Comment


            • #36
              Originally posted by FreeBooteR69 View Post
              It's funny how RMS is characterized by his detractors as a fanatic, while at the same time these self same detractors foam at the mouth sounding even more fantatical than he supposedly does.
              Because it's SO MUCH MORE FUN to pick on people than it is to actually try to keep up with what they are talking about.

              Comment


              • #37
                Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
                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? :/
                Let's talk about NUTS:

                Your video system consists of both hardware and software. You see OpenGL or some such as the API, and it's implemented by the video system. On a modern card or an old SGI Onyx, the OpenGL library is just a thin library on top of the hardware. On an older card the OpenGL functionality is coming from software. The demarcation line between the hardware and the software is pretty arbitrary, it depends on what kind of card you have, etc.

                What RMS is doing is stepping into that blob of software and hardware and making some pretty indefensible arguments about what should be free and what is irrelevant. Honestly I cannot understand how he can say that proprietary software doesn't matter if it's burned onto a card.

                Let me point out that all those arguments RMS made so long ago about the proprietary drivers on the 9th floor Xerox dover, they apply equally to the firmware on your ethernet card, or to the code on the controller processor on your hard drives.

                It's really funny that RMS claims to not care about proprietary hardware, when it was proprietary hardware that inspired him to write the GPL!
                Last edited by frantaylor; 07-30-2012, 12:36 AM.

                Comment


                • #38
                  Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
                  I'm European, so no, thats not true.
                  Are there parts (other than the 3 paragraphs where it says may not apply to European Union consumers) of the Steam subscriber agreement that do not apply to Europeans? I'm also European so I'm interested in this. I tried to search more info about this, but couldn't find anything about parts of the subscriber agreement not being valid in Europe.

                  Comment


                  • #39
                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    What about the firmware on the cards? It's not free software, it's 100% proprietary.
                    On your card, maybe. On my card, for sure. On his card? I doubt it.

                    Your situation doesn't apply for everyone else. Firmware doesn't need to be closed sourced, especially so when you job is to make hardware most other people can't make. Moreso, when your motherboard is probably using the same proprietary software as everyone elses. For the record, you can get distros with non-free firmware.

                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    He has no problem with this firmware if the manufacturer decides to burn the firmware into the device. However if the manufacturer instead decides to download the firmware at boot time, well that's a 100% DIFFERENT STORY for some reason that I really just can't fathom.
                    I actually think he's probably it, though if something had to be proprietary, he'd prefer it was left on the hardware itself, and that the community was given the ability to interface with it. This is because he cares about being able to use that card in his OS of choice, with his software of choice, and this practice wouldn't harm him your ability to do this. If he made a distinction of loading a binary into the card being worse than the card having a firmware pre-installed that'd be strange. I already said I don't subscribe, thus I've not read what you're pertaining to. Feel free to provide a link.

                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    WHY is it that RMS doesn't care about proprietary software and yet they get all in a stink if the hardware manufacturer decides to make a good design decision?

                    Again I say that RMS's goals are in conflict with reality as we know it.
                    Being in conflict with reality doesn't mean his views are inconsistant.


                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    It JUST SO HAPPENS that I am a BIG fan of Linux and free software. I don't know RMS personally but we have met. We travel in the same social circles and we have dated the same girls. I was offered a job by the FSF but I turned it down. I've been getting paid to write linux software since 0.99pl13. Please don't accuse me of being a MS troll.
                    Heh.

                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    Tell us more about why Phoronix is nuts because there are people who ask questions. Yes indeed really we should just all bow down and accept unthinkingly.
                    I specifically said I don't particularly agree with RMS but I felt you and others are misrepresenting his view point. Now you are misrepresenting my view point, which makes you either nuts, stupid, lazy or disingenuous. There are quite a lot of you around here, which is strange, because this is a place where a couple of really intelligent open source driver coders hang out, but I honestly don't know why they bother.

                    Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                    Let's talk about NUTS:
                    You mean like replying to the same guy twice, with basically the same content, as if you have something profound to say? I already replied to this, but I'm going to ignore you going forward unless you actually contribute something new.
                    Last edited by ownagefool; 07-30-2012, 12:34 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #40
                      Just in case

                      Just in case anyone is wondering:

                      I'm an advocate for a computer in which all of the computing hardware is open source. You can keep your secrets about CMOS process control, but all of the firmware, hardware schematics, etc. should be open source.

                      Why? Because it's REALLY what RMS wants to do. I'd say that he must have been asleep in 6.111 but then I remember that he went to Harvard, not MIT, so he did not have to learn about how hardware works. I just think he hasn't thought through the firmware issues.

                      A fully open system with all the firmware on all the devices laid bare, is the only way to go. You want to REALLY simulate your server and see where the bottlenecks are? You need it ALL. RMS is stopping halfway.

                      Comment


                      • #41
                        Originally posted by ownagefool View Post
                        On your card, maybe. On my card, for sure. On his card? I doubt it.
                        He says he uses a lenovo laptop. It's probably got an Intel ethernet chip and an Intel wireless chip, both loaded with proprietary firmware.


                        Being in conflict with reality doesn't mean his views are inconsistant.
                        Being in conflict with reality is a big problem if you want to see your ideas happen in this reality.

                        that the community was given the ability to interface with it.
                        There are "GPL" drivers in the linux kernel that were written by engineers at the hardware companies, who had access to NDA documentation. The "community" has NO ability to interface with this hardware except through the "virtual binary blob" of a GPL driver that can't be touched without an NDA manual in front of you.

                        unless you actually contribute something new.

                        My contribution is to ask questions that apparently don't have very good answers.

                        If you aren't prepared to make assertions that you will stand behind, what is YOUR contribution?

                        Comment


                        • #42
                          Bah, this is a message from leader to followers on how Valve's initiative is a mixed blessing for their mission. If you don't ascribe to the same belief system, then there's little point in discussing the message itself.

                          That said, if we are going to talk about the free software mandate itself instead of Valve's role in it... I see issues, even for something as fundamental as a software developer's survival.

                          Software developers need to be paid somehow; we shouldn't need to spend our lives with two jobs (software development and subsistence farming ). There are a lot of cases where you can create a business model that does not require selling individual copies. If you can generate revenue from support contracts, bundled hardware, or bundled art (as in the case of a video game), then things are great. Why not open up the source code and encourage creativity from your users (voiding warranty where buggy software may cause explosions, haha)?

                          However, that does not work for everything. Sometimes your software is your entire competitive advantage, the reason people are buying your bundle of stuff and not someone else's; sometimes there's nothing to sell except the software. I don't see how going open source can make any sense here. If the software requires any significant investment of research and development time, how do you compensate your developers so they can maintain some standard of living?

                          I realize RMS is not opposed to selling copies of the software, but without preventing other distribution channels, you are unlikely to see much revenue from your own. You necessarily must charge more to cover NRE, while anyone else could supply it for free. Unless there's something I'm missing here, I don't see how a complete system of free software can work in a capitalist society.

                          Comment


                          • #43
                            Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                            Being in conflict with reality is a big problem if you want to see your ideas happen in this reality.
                            That is moronic (no offense). Maybe you should build a time machine, you could go back through time and stop anyone who had a different idea than what was the social norm. This would include many of the great philosophors, scientists, artists, inventors, as well as many leaders of various movements through out history.

                            what a great world we would live in, if everyone thought like this :|

                            Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                            There are "GPL" drivers in the linux kernel that were written by engineers at the hardware companies, who had access to NDA documentation. The "community" has NO ability to interface with this hardware except through the "virtual binary blob" of a GPL driver that can't be touched without an NDA manual in front of you.
                            yup. problematic indeed.

                            Originally posted by frantaylor View Post
                            My contribution is to ask questions that apparently don't have very good answers.

                            If you aren't prepared to make assertions that you will stand behind, what is YOUR contribution?
                            i know this wasn't addressed to me specifically - but what you have said above is NO contribution at all. that's a pretty big fail and really comes across like you are trying to have a pissing contest.

                            Your artist example was also pretty weak. You can tell a hell of a lot of looking at almost any artist's painting. Everything from the type of paint, style, types of tools used, the technique used (glazing would be one example), what base colors were used / the ordering of the colors/tones. Also, it is very common for artists to share/teach technique and even document their (making of) works.

                            the same is true of music.

                            Art is not typically proprietary as you are claiming.
                            Last edited by ninez; 07-30-2012, 01:19 AM.

                            Comment


                            • #44
                              Originally posted by spiritofreason View Post
                              Bah, this is a message from leader to followers on how Valve's initiative is a mixed blessing for their mission. If you don't ascribe to the same belief system, then there's little point in discussing the message itself.

                              That said, if we are going to talk about the free software mandate itself instead of Valve's role in it... I see issues, even for something as fundamental as a software developer's survival.

                              Software developers need to be paid somehow; we shouldn't need to spend our lives with two jobs (software development and subsistence farming ). There are a lot of cases where you can create a business model that does not require selling individual copies. If you can generate revenue from support contracts, bundled hardware, or bundled art (as in the case of a video game), then things are great. Why not open up the source code and encourage creativity from your users (voiding warranty where buggy software may cause explosions, haha)?

                              However, that does not work for everything. Sometimes your software is your entire competitive advantage, the reason people are buying your bundle of stuff and not someone else's; sometimes there's nothing to sell except the software. I don't see how going open source can make any sense here. If the software requires any significant investment of research and development time, how do you compensate your developers so they can maintain some standard of living?

                              I realize RMS is not opposed to selling copies of the software, but without preventing other distribution channels, you are unlikely to see much revenue from your own. You necessarily must charge more to cover NRE, while anyone else could supply it for free. Unless there's something I'm missing here, I don't see how a complete system of free software can work in a capitalist society.
                              The music industry is having discussions about how to pay people, I have friends who are semi-professional musicians so I get involved in those discussions too.

                              I think it's the same issue. With musicians the question is "why should the performer get paid over and over again for doing something once". The answer is the same in both cases: if you want to sell software or music, you are monetizing the wrong commodity. What you really want to sell is the service of working software, or the service of live performed music.

                              This is why RedHat is successful, because they are not selling software, they are selling the service of a working RHEL installation. The Grateful Dead were the most successful musical act ever, precisely because they chose to monetize their live performances instead of their recorded music.

                              RedHat will sponsor the development of new features in Linux for precisely the same reason that Microsoft will sponsor the development of new features in Windows: to woo customers.

                              In this context the choices of platforms is just a minor business detail, what is really important is the business model where you are selling the gaming experience.

                              If you can't make money selling your product, don't grumble about how the market works, find a different way to make money.
                              Last edited by frantaylor; 07-30-2012, 01:30 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #45
                                Problem is, some people have to actually make a living with their work. If it's OpenSource, anyone can copy it without paying a cent. ClosedSource software? Run an obfuscator above it and the people even able to get something out of that are very few.

                                What I'd agree with/what should be done by all companies: When a version of a program or the program itself isn't interesting to the company anymore (they moved to a newer version/people are not buying it anymore...) the program should be opensource'd (like idSoftware does)

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X