Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Richard Stallman Comments On Valve For Linux

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

  • #46
    How can free software exist???

    People ask how free software can exist in a pure capitalist society.

    Look at the napkins and straws and salt packets that are given away for free in fast food restaurants. Do the people who make these things do it for free? No, they are paid by the restaurant because these free items enhance the restaurant's business.

    This is how companies like RedHat can write free software and give it away and make money doing it.

    Comment


    • #47
      is there even source code for firmware when it was writed in ASM?

      someone pointed that Stallman used proprietary compiler and should write that first. well then you would accuse him that he used closed source text editor or something.

      Comment


      • #48
        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
        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.
        Not quite right. When RMS says that non-free software is unethical, he means that it does not fit his ethics which he has defined pretty narrowly. However, what people hear when he says that is "non-free software is immoral," which is lunacy (i.e. it's a category error.). So I can understand where statements like this can grate the nerves. Even still, I wish he'd quit saying things the way he does.

        Software is neither good nor evil on its own. It merely exists.

        Comment


        • #49
          A thought experiment

          As a thought experiment let's construct a hypothetical computer in a fantasy universe where the MPAA reigns supreme.

          Your computer has "disks" that you purchase, with "content" on them. You plug the disks into a "drive" on your computer. The content is viewed on a "display" through a process by which the processor reads data from the "drive" and transfers it to the "display"

          In this computer, all of the interfaces are industry standard, and every single bit setting of every register is documented. The software that controls all of this functionality is GPL. This sounds like RMS's nirvana, right???

          Well just wait a minute. Those "disks" are encoded in an undocumented format and they can only be played back in the specified "drives". The content is heavily encrypted and the data stream being passed from the "drive" to the "display" is just binary noise from the point of view of the linux drivers, yet nevertheless high quality images appear on the "display"

          This machine is a 100% total nightmare scenario and yet it's a perfectly acceptable state of affairs to RMS. After all the hardware is "accessible to all", the software is open and freely modifiable by anyone, etc. and yet big brother is 100% in control of the content that you are viewing.

          If you think my "nightmare scenario" is just a paranoid fantasy, just look at the HDMI standards for displays and the encryption on DVDs and blu-ray and tell me that the industry is NOT moving this way.

          If you say "well the free software people would not contribute to such a scenario", they don't have to do it willingly. If the hardware devices are all aware of what the software drivers are doing with the data, then they can simply transfer encrypted data between themselves and the linux kernel doesn't even have to be aware of the fact that it's transferring encrypted data. It just thinks it's reading pixels from the "drive" and stuffing them into the "display".
          Last edited by frantaylor; 07-30-2012, 02:42 AM.

          Comment


          • #50
            He doesn't seem to be so mad about it. I somehow get the feeling that he finds it positive in a way (further adoption etc) despite his concerns.

            Comment


            • #51
              I think people need to respect Stallman more. He might be an extremist and you might not agree entirely with his views or his style, but he does raise a few good points about Valve porting their stuff and proprietary software in general. And in my opinion, every side needs a few extremists, otherwise their message won't be very powerful lol.

              Even Stallman recognizes that while Steam is proprietary, porting their stuff to Linux could increase more adoption and therefore more opensource developers. I wonder what he thinks about the commitments that Valve is making to improving the opensource drivers and things like that.

              Personally, I think it's practically impossible to have an opensource game that makes a profit at the same time, unless the entirety of the code was made by only one well-organized team, kinda like Android I guess.. but it would still be practically difficult to make one either way. Most of the opensource games I've seen are online multiplayer games (lots of quake-style FPS games), I haven't seen an opensource single-player game yet, except maybe for doom mods or something.

              Comment


              • #52
                Stallman don't understand that users just don't care if it is open or not, they want to play and have fun.. when I read things like.
                ''its purpose is to bring freedom to the users.''

                Then I mean, ... sure, back in the 80's users were actually also programmers, but today there are users as consumers and users as programmers and consumers do not care about source code and neither will it help them if they had it.
                Anyway I welcome Valve's move to the Linux platform and I don't see it bad that the source is closed, as games are only entertainment and amusement just like movies and music..

                When the movie Avatar was released no one complained they did-int release their sources of the renders they did on a huge ubuntu farm or?
                I am a open source type person, but some things are just not important and I think as long as it is not relevant or vital for my OS to run or needed to live then the both closed and open can co-exist in those areas where it is important (games are not important :-))..

                Comment


                • #53
                  Re

                  Originally posted by wizard69 View Post
                  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.
                  From few years of Stallman opening his mouth I learned that no one should listen to him and do what he personally thinks it's right...
                  "Many of these games take substantial amounts of cash to develop and as such the developers have no chance of paying the bills" - in a video broadcast (search on youtube "jupiter broadcasting linux action show stallman" and he talks from minute 10:25, he puts the question at ~50:40), the broadcaster asked that he has to provide for his family and needs to be payed for development of software, Stallman was saying that he should do it anyway for free. The broadcaster again says that he has kids and he has to feed them and all this kind of things and Stallman said "The most effective thing that any Amercian can do to reduce ecological impact is not have a kid. That's another point to keep in mind. It's really important for people to realize that."(from 56:30 in the video). He basically is saying People in the world should not make kids and evolve and continue the existence of the human race. Don't listen to him, I don't know what it is in Stallman's mind but I have the impression that it is not alright...
                  Here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA&t=56m0s

                  Comment


                  • #54
                    "what does the use of these games teach people in our community?"

                    To have fun!

                    Comment


                    • #55
                      Originally posted by gens View Post
                      just what i was gonna say, maybe not that extreme thou

                      Stallman is a really smart individual, no doubt about it
                      from whats he's usually saying, id say he is an utopist and therefore has a rather naive view of the world(geniuses tend to be naive) thus belives anyone can do anything just for fun
                      nothing wrong with that, utopia is a good goal, its just so far away

                      not as big a genius as yourself it would seem as you seem to have genii completely worked out...

                      Comment


                      • #56
                        Originally posted by RealNC View Post
                        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.

                        yes it is un-ethical!

                        Comment


                        • #57
                          Originally posted by Alliancemd View Post
                          From few years of Stallman opening his mouth I learned that no one should listen to him and do what he personally thinks it's right...
                          "Many of these games take substantial amounts of cash to develop and as such the developers have no chance of paying the bills" - in a video broadcast (search on youtube "jupiter broadcasting linux action show stallman" and he talks from minute 10:25, he puts the question at ~50:40), the broadcaster asked that he has to provide for his family and needs to be payed for development of software, Stallman was saying that he should do it anyway for free. The broadcaster again says that he has kids and he has to feed them and all this kind of things and Stallman said "The most effective thing that any Amercian can do to reduce ecological impact is not have a kid. That's another point to keep in mind. It's really important for people to realize that."(from 56:30 in the video). He basically is saying People in the world should not make kids and evolve and continue the existence of the human race. Don't listen to him, I don't know what it is in Stallman's mind but I have the impression that it is not alright...
                          Here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA&t=56m0s
                          here is one for you.. when RMS writes something people read/listen - when you write something only I read/listen so why should mr stallman stop writing and you be allowed to continue

                          you sir are a twat!!!

                          Comment


                          • #58
                            Originally posted by Alliancemd View Post
                            From few years of Stallman opening his mouth I learned that no one should listen to him and do what he personally thinks it's right...
                            "Many of these games take substantial amounts of cash to develop and as such the developers have no chance of paying the bills" - in a video broadcast (search on youtube "jupiter broadcasting linux action show stallman" and he talks from minute 10:25, he puts the question at ~50:40), the broadcaster asked that he has to provide for his family and needs to be payed for development of software, Stallman was saying that he should do it anyway for free. The broadcaster again says that he has kids and he has to feed them and all this kind of things and Stallman said "The most effective thing that any Amercian can do to reduce ecological impact is not have a kid. That's another point to keep in mind. It's really important for people to realize that."(from 56:30 in the video). He basically is saying People in the world should not make kids and evolve and continue the existence of the human race. Don't listen to him, I don't know what it is in Stallman's mind but I have the impression that it is not alright...
                            Here is a link to the youtube video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=radmjL5OIaA&t=56m0s
                            and yet again someone complaining, that Stallman doesn't 100% conform to their views, and therefore is a psycho who's every words should not be taken seriously, _with prejudice_ (because, in just environment, even pshycos should have a benefit of a doubt to voice their opinions).
                            did i miss on how Stallman publicly signed up to be everyone's moral idol, instead of discussing a narrow field of ethics in software development ? because no one expects anyone to follow unquestionably every word he says, and F/OSS "cult" exist only in raging imagination of the likes of you. hypocrites :/

                            damn, i marvel at the man: every time a complicated issue arises, he writes a maximally neutral statement, with inclination on the goals of FSF and ideas of "software freedom", _how he's fucking supposed to do_, being, you know, it's originator. and still, comes of as a "zealot" for standing for he's ideals and goals, again, _like he's supposed to_.
                            so i wonder, how he has the patience to repeat over and over again the same things, finding different words for it to appeal to different people, especially the ones, who do not want to listen and have a mindset, in which 'pragmatic' apparently stands for 'thoughtlessly preferring easy solutions for short-term needs in detriment of long-term goals'.

                            what, idea that going for any goal in reality of life is _fucking tough_ (so tough, that it maybe even requires some sacrifices and rearrangement of you priorities) is a revelation for you ?
                            or maybe you though, that he's talking about profitable new business model for software development he invented, instead of simply arguing for "what's right" in he's opinion ?
                            the thing is: automation is a crucial part of modern life, and it's importance will only rise. hardware & software are, respectively, material & immaterial components of it. which means that what they composed of is also globally crucial, despite you, or anyone else, caring about it or not. which means that conscious decisions in fields of hardware & software development must be made, conscious of the consequences. and more your life is entangled with those processes, more you should be aware of that.
                            simple truth of life: mind the consequences, motherfucker. and yet, the man still doesn't yell to "fuck off then" to every "BUT users just don't care | it's tough, and seemingly not worth it"-asshole. for all the weirdness of RMS, i cannot not to respect that !

                            PS: "you" does not literally mean the guy with the quote from above.
                            and, by the way, how about concentrating on discussing the issue and RMS's statement instead of discussing him, assholes ?

                            Comment


                            • #59
                              Freedom of Choice

                              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 fully agree.

                              After years of testing, last year I changed my live System from M$ Windows to Linux.
                              There are still a few apps, which I have to run in a Windows-Box (VirtualBox).

                              I wouldn't mind paying for the apps I really want. And I already have purchase several apps.
                              Especially utilizing multi- / cross-platform apps. So I can use them on my Linux system, as well as on a Windows machine if necessary. (e.g. on client site.)

                              So I have the freedom to choose. I choose Linux as the OS and wished, more apps would be available on all platforms, even for sale.

                              For me free as in free beer is less important than free in term of freedom of choice.
                              Freedom of choice through multi-/cross-platform apps, utilizing of open standard file and data formats.

                              So that I can change apps and platforms when I desire to, without beeing locked in.

                              That is real freedom of choice for me.


                              Just a thought:
                              Imagine, the application you need is not available on the linux platform, because there is nobody, who wrote the app for free.
                              So you DON'T have the choice and are usually forced to use M$ or fruit (apple) OS! That is not what I want. That is not freedom!
                              Last edited by rgloor; 07-30-2012, 05:16 AM.

                              Comment


                              • #60
                                where does Stallman takes you the right to use unfree software, he only says that he thinks that that is not good. Are you unable to do that if somebody dont think its a good idea? rofl

                                For Stallman he is very practical about steam, he does not like you fanatics that hate him for even philosophice about free or not free software, say just in this comment, its unfree it sucks, valve go to hell, go away, you are very evil, please shoot yourself in the head or stay away or something like that.

                                He does not even triumpide about a company HAVING to switch to linux for there own sake, its not a Charity linux port, its business, they see themself in the middle future maybe extinct if microsoft goes this way more and more...

                                Gosh, he did not even triumpide about microsoft loosing a software-patent lawsuid.

                                He even admits that this unfree software can do good things:

                                "- Thus, in direct practical terms, this development can do both harm and good."

                                and that from richard stallman, he is way less fanatic than you free software haters that are religiosly pragmatic you would love to have 99,99999% closed source on linux when you can have photoshop and co for that...

                                basicly its the same stuff I think about it.

                                And I cant hear it that we live in a "non-perfekt" world and no all is irrelevant because we all are fucked anyway. Thats the additude that brought us here and will make us war everywhere in the world in the future (more than today and also in die 1. world). And brought us this financis crysis. I hate this cynical mainstream attitude, that things that our evil system is god given and cant be changed... thats what mighty people count on, and press does all to bring us into this mental state...


                                clearly free software alone will not fix our world, but it goes in the right direction more important steps would be unconditional income grant, and maybe maybe we have to reinvent money because our interest-interest system with nearly no balancing through the taxes directs to exponential growth and thats impossible to do on a limited world.

                                Comment

                                Working...
                                X