GNU Project Founder Calls Steam on Linux "Unethical"

[tautologico]

I kinda agree with the guy, GOG.com seems more in line with what Linux stands for, not Steam. While there's nothing wrong with a company porting their software to a new OS and supporting that port, it doesn't necessarily mean that the ideals and goals of the two mesh. In the end though it doesn't really matter to me, since I refuse to use Steam under any circumstances, regardless of Operating System. I just hope that this doesn't become a trend, DRM-heavy software coming over to Linux and dominating the market to the point that it becomes impossible for Linux to be a cheap alternative for users again.

If someone can find a profitable model for open source games, this could be true. Right now, it's very hard to equate "open source" with "profitable game". There are some good open source games but they're mostly copied from other existing commercial games. Many open source game projects suffer because art is expensive to produce and people who can create quality art will rarely do so for free, much less make it available through a free license. To make a truly free game (in the sense of freedom) all the art assets should be made free as well, and this is hard (as exemplified by id open sourcing its engines, they never come with the levels and the art for the respective games).

Hence why there hasn't been a single big success story for open source games yet. Games are expensive to produce and no one was able to equate being free with being profitable.

In general I'm a free software supporter but I don't think this should be an extreme position. There are many different cases and games are one of them in which they're more an entertaining product than a software product. Stallman thinks everything should be free and open, with no exceptions. Maybe someday this will be possible for everything, but right now it's not practical.

 

[PingoBlack]

So, I guess it boils down to: Is Linux an elitist, exclusionary platform that rejects everyday users in favor of those who are ultra-smart or who are willing to have a computer that doesn't actually work so long as it's "free"? Or are they actually trying to ACCOMPLISH something? Because if they want the average user to switch to Linux, they have to make Linux worth switching to. Coding something falls outside the bounds of "common knowledge" and into the bounds of "professional-level learning". If you want Linux to be a platform made specifically for professionals, fine, but don't promote it as an alternative to Windows. Because as horrific as Windows is, I don't have to code my own patches.

I just have to highlight this.
This is the most important aspect of this debate and even Stallman pointed this out exactly.

If you want Linux to "beat" Windows, it needs more mainstream. Games are a good way to go mainstream quickly and Steam is not a bad way to go about it.

However, some of the purity and openness might have to be conceded in the process. And I have to agree with Mr. Stallman again, the least amount of loss is what matters. We don't want another Windows with a penguin logo.

 

[Azuaron]

--snip--

Quote error

 

[Baby Tea]

So, I guess it boils down to: Is Linux an elitist, exclusionary platform that rejects everyday users in favor of those who are ultra-smart or who are willing to have a computer that doesn't actually work so long as it's "free"? Or are they actually trying to ACCOMPLISH something? Because if they want the average user to switch to Linux, they have to make Linux worth switching to. Coding something falls outside the bounds of "common knowledge" and into the bounds of "professional-level learning". If you want Linux to be a platform made specifically for professionals, fine, but don't promote it as an alternative to Windows. Because as horrific as Windows is, I don't have to code my own patches.

How long has it been since you used Linux?
I can get an Ubuntu or Mint machine up and running a Windows game in Wine without typing a line of code. Both of those distributions (Just to name two) are extremely user friendly. They are different than Windows, no question, but still very user friendly. I'd say just as user friendly as Windows. The only problem is that people have been using Windows for decades. People are so used to it, that anything else seems utterly foreign. Like when a long time Windows user sits down at a Mac and says 'what the heck is this?'. Because it doesn't have a start button, or windows explorer, or anything they are used to.

Linux is far from rejecting everyday users. Ubuntu alone is a testament to the commitment of the Linux community to reach out to the less technically minded and offer an alternative to paid operating systems. It's easy, it's available, and it works.

That being said, Linux just isn't compatible with a lot of games out there. And if you want it to be that can, indeed, take some tinkering. But that's hardly the fault of the Linux community or the OS. Nobody is excluding people from making software for Linux, developers are discounting Linux when making their software. It's not until recently that bigger software and game developers have really started to look at Linux as a real player, and Valve is bringing some serious fire-power to this move. Steam is a major distributor of games (obviously), and to have that on Linux is a major indicator of what types of shifts we can see in the future in regards to OS compatibility.

And Linux is beyond ready for it. OpenGL is extremely capable for graphic fidelity, even when up against Direct3D. All that is needed is for more companies, like Valve, to get on board. Not to mention a lower over-head for everyone involved.

Linux is absolutely 'worth using'.

 

[Mike the Bard]

I do believe his point is kind of moot. you can already get paid drm-software on Linux by using Wine and running windows games and software through it. while you don't have to pay for wine, you don't have to pay for steam's actual software either.

 

[lacktheknack]

Guys... this is Richard Stallman.

The man uses ABSOLUTELY NOTHING that isn't open-source software.

He'd oppose a freaking FREE program if it was controlled by only one group.

Case in point:

http://stallman.org/

There's his personal website. He opposes Apple, Amazon, Facebook, Skype... the list extends.

 

[insanelich]

I guess this guy forgot the part where Valve is a business. I'd understand being upset about Steam's use of DRM, but the fact that he is mad about paying for games is... unsettling.

Free not as in Beer, free as in freedom.

On the other hand, if it's free as in freedom it might as well be free as in beer, because one of those freedoms is being able to redistribute it as widely as you want ? so basically, piracy. Which is all well and good if you're making open-source software as a hobby and want to share it with the world, but Stallman and his fellow software-wants-to-be-free types think it's morally wrong to create media for profit. They're basically communists in denial.

How is Stallman in denial about being a communist, now?

 

[Formica Archonis]

Stallman complains about X. Stallman complains about Y. Stallman complains about someone saying "Linux" and not "GNU/Linux" like God meant it to be.

I await the day when a headline reads "Stallman thinks Z is quite good."

 

[Azuaron]

--snip--

--snip--

The problem with Linux is that it's only useful for absolute beginners and experts. As soon as you want to do anything more complicated than surf the internet or use a word processor (and sometimes even then), you have to start writing patches and scripts, which, as a non-expert, I totally screw up, and then suddenly my computer crashes every time I turn it on.

And for games? Forget about it. PC gaming has always been plagued with hardware incompatibilities and driver conflicts. Add Linux to the mix (where you could very well be writing your own drivers) and good luck!

And you know what? I don't want to be an expert Linux user. I don't want to be an expert Windows user or an expert Mac user. I want to be able to say, "Computer, do this," and have it do it.

So, Windows it is.

(Every couple of years since 2006 I try Linux again, and it never gets much better.)

 

[Yuri Albuquerque]

--snip--

--snip--

The problem with Linux is that it's only useful for absolute beginners and experts. As soon as you want to do anything more complicated than surf the internet or use a word processor (and sometimes even then), you have to start writing patches and scripts, which, as a non-expert, I totally screw up, and then suddenly my computer crashes every time I turn it on.

And for games? Forget about it. PC gaming has always been plagued with hardware incompatibilities and driver conflicts. Add Linux to the mix (where you could very well be writing your own drivers) and good luck!

And you know what? I don't want to be an expert Linux user. I don't want to be an expert Windows user or an expert Mac user. I want to be able to say, "Computer, do this," and have it do it.

So, Windows it is.

(Every couple of years since 2006 I try Linux again, and it never gets much better.)

This has not been true for a long time. You don't need to write a single script to use Ubuntu.

(But, indeed, you need lots of scripts for expert distros, as Arch Linux. I'm suffering with it).

 

[Doom972]

Challenging his ideology by making a large amount of competing non-free software is ethical. He should embrace a chance to see if he might be right and free software people make in their spare time can withstand competition by the opposite or not.

 

[llafnwod]

-Snip-

Has Linux ever had its philosophy endangered like this before? I admit, my knowledge of Linux is limited to a few friends who use it.

Has GNU* ever had it's philosophy endangered like this. Linux is a kernel, GNU is an operating system. Plenty of GNU/Linux distributions use non-free software or standards (non-free meaning under a proprietary license), and many have versions both with and without non-free elements. Hell, free distributions can't play mp3s out of the box, since that's a proprietary standard.

 

[McMullen]

I guess this guy forgot the part where Valve is a business. I'd understand being upset about Steam's use of DRM, but the fact that he is mad about paying for games is... unsettling.

Free not as in Beer, free as in freedom.

I can completely understand how that confusion would occur. That was a spectacular example of bad communication on Stallman's part; anyone who's not very familiar with the GNU movement will assume he's whining because people have to pay for things.

He needs to learn to speak effectively, or encourage someone else to be the public voice of the movement.

 

[Baby Tea]

The problem with Linux is that it's only useful for absolute beginners and experts. As soon as you want to do anything more complicated than surf the internet or use a word processor (and sometimes even then), you have to start writing patches and scripts, which, as a non-expert, I totally screw up, and then suddenly my computer crashes every time I turn it on.

This seems extreme.
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do that requires you to write your own scripts, or what distribution you're using. I've done everything from audio editing (I'm a radio producer by trade), word processing, networking, server set-ups, photo manipulation, desktop customization, and more and have never had to write a line of code, so long as I was using something like Ubuntu.

I use Slitaz Linux for servers, and that DOES require coding and command-line usage, but who the heck is using that besides nerds like me? Even so, you can use Slitaz for the mundane (Web surfing, word processing, etc) and it would STILL work perfectly with no code or command-line usage.

I'd put it to you that Windows isn't easier, you're just used to it more. Which is totally fair. If you've been using it since 3.0 like I have, you just 'get used' to the fact that certain things work certain ways, and when you're introduced to an operating system that does it differently, it just seems like a user unfriendly platform.

And Linux isn't that incompatible as you might think. ESPECIALLY with something like Ubuntu. I've installed Ubuntu (Or Xubuntu) on some old shitty machines, and had zero issues with hardware compatibility out of the proverbial box. This includes obscure wi-fi drivers and GPUs. Speaking of which: OpenGL runs naively in Linux, and there are plenty of drivers available for existing, modern GPUs.

This isn't the mid to late 90s anymore. Linux, Ubuntu specifically, is more than capable, and very user friendly.

 

[Scars Unseen]

I guess this guy forgot the part where Valve is a business. I'd understand being upset about Steam's use of DRM, but the fact that he is mad about paying for games is... unsettling.

Free not as in Beer, free as in freedom.

On the other hand, if it's free as in freedom it might as well be free as in beer, because one of those freedoms is being able to redistribute it as widely as you want ? so basically, piracy. Which is all well and good if you're making open-source software as a hobby and want to share it with the world, but Stallman and his fellow software-wants-to-be-free types think it's morally wrong to create media for profit. They're basically communists in denial.

This is not necessarily true. Providing source code does not require one to permit open distribution. That's a licensing issue. Granted, most software with source code available now is as you say, but it doesn't have to be that way.

 

[RandV80]

--snip--

Quote error

So, I guess it boils down to: Is Linux an elitist, exclusionary platform that rejects everyday users in favor of those who are ultra-smart or who are willing to have a computer that doesn't actually work so long as it's "free"? Or are they actually trying to ACCOMPLISH something? Because if they want the average user to switch to Linux, they have to make Linux worth switching to. Coding something falls outside the bounds of "common knowledge" and into the bounds of "professional-level learning". If you want Linux to be a platform made specifically for professionals, fine, but don't promote it as an alternative to Windows. Because as horrific as Windows is, I don't have to code my own patches.

I just have to highlight this.
This is the most important aspect of this debate and even Stallman pointed this out exactly.

If you want Linux to "beat" Windows, it needs more mainstream. Games are a good way to go mainstream quickly and Steam is not a bad way to go about it.

However, some of the purity and openness might have to be conceded in the process. And I have to agree with Mr. Stallman again, the least amount of loss is what matters. We don't want another Windows with a penguin logo.

Or rather have Linux be reduced from promoting a broader ideal of free open source software to being simply being that free operating system that comes with every computer. The same way that your web browser is free, but once you connect to the internet your faced with advertising, spyware, spam, copyright take downs, etc. Linux wants to be the web browser that comes with a completely free and open internet. If they were to suddenly take over Windows for the market share, it wouldn't be long before the former windows software developers are imposing their own prices and adding digital locks to Linux to shut down all access to the proprietary source code.

I'm not really a Linux user myself but I believe I understand what they're trying to accomplish.

 

[sca462069]

"Closed-source games on Linux could harm the very freedom the GNU project was set up to achieve." so he's saying he wants open source games, Not just DRM free ones? I really doubt that would happen.
Also could imagine multiplayer on popular & completely open source game? We get enough people using hacks and cheats in multiplayer games as is without them being able to edit it however they want.

 

[Laughing Man]

Okay maybe I am missing something but here's my understanding

Steam has a good few thousands games available of them about 10 to 20 are Valve's own created games.

Steam coming to Linux does not mean ALL those games will be coming to Linux, so far as it seems Valve is the only one to say they will be porting their games.

Steam coming to Linux does not mean that developers who use Steam will suddenly want to target the Linux market. After all it is a tiny market, most gamers already have Windows and most gamers already have the games they want why would they suddenly want to waste time and resource porting games to a tiny tiny market share that may already have their games on a second Windows install?

Valve games are amongst some of the most heavily modded games out there, closed source, hardly.

Steam on Linux won't bring a bunch of corporate closed source gaming to the wonders of open source OSes, chances are most developers won't even give it a second thought. So what's the problem?

 

[Azuaron]

--snip--

--snip--

The problem with Linux is that it's only useful for absolute beginners and experts. As soon as you want to do anything more complicated than surf the internet or use a word processor (and sometimes even then), you have to start writing patches and scripts, which, as a non-expert, I totally screw up, and then suddenly my computer crashes every time I turn it on.

And for games? Forget about it. PC gaming has always been plagued with hardware incompatibilities and driver conflicts. Add Linux to the mix (where you could very well be writing your own drivers) and good luck!

And you know what? I don't want to be an expert Linux user. I don't want to be an expert Windows user or an expert Mac user. I want to be able to say, "Computer, do this," and have it do it.

So, Windows it is.

(Every couple of years since 2006 I try Linux again, and it never gets much better.)

This has not been true for a long time. You don't need to write a single script to use Ubuntu.

(But, indeed, you need lots of scripts for expert distros, as Arch Linux. I'm suffering with it).

This seems extreme.
I'm not sure what exactly you're trying to do that requires you to write your own scripts, or what distribution you're using. I've done everything from audio editing (I'm a radio producer by trade), word processing, networking, server set-ups, photo manipulation, desktop customization, and more and have never had to write a line of code, so long as I was using something like Ubuntu.

I use Slitaz Linux for servers, and that DOES require coding and command-line usage, but who the heck is using that besides nerds like me? Even so, you can use Slitaz for the mundane (Web surfing, word processing, etc) and it would STILL work perfectly with no code or command-line usage.

I'd put it to you that Windows isn't easier, you're just used to it more. Which is totally fair. If you've been using it since 3.0 like I have, you just 'get used' to the fact that certain things work certain ways, and when you're introduced to an operating system that does it differently, it just seems like a user unfriendly platform.

And Linux isn't that incompatible as you might think. ESPECIALLY with something like Ubuntu. I've installed Ubuntu (Or Xubuntu) on some old shitty machines, and had zero issues with hardware compatibility out of the proverbial box. This includes obscure wi-fi drivers and GPUs. Speaking of which: OpenGL runs naively in Linux, and there are plenty of drivers available for existing, modern GPUs.

Ubuntu was my Linux of choice. Want to play a game? To bad there aren't any. With WINE? Better modify your graphics card driver. Configure a simple LAMP web server with SMTP (which, really, is all Linux is good for)? MODIFY ALL THE CORE FILES.

And every time you go online and ask, "How do I do ___?" the Linux community is completely dismissive of you (just like you two, right now). "Oh, you just have to go into your VLR file in the etc folder (with fracking vi 'cause that's the best text editor ever, apparently) and change lines 1023 - 1154. Don't waste our time with this crap."

Most of my solutions for problems in Linux, even the ones that worked, I had no idea what I was doing; I just followed someone's instructions to modify some random files and hoped it worked. When it did, okay. When it didn't, time to reinstall Ubuntu, because nothing works anymore.

Linux has serious learning curve problems. The Linux community doesn't see those problems, because they already know how to use it, and have the attitude that Linux is better than it used to be, so kids these days have it easy (used to be total Hell, instead of just mostly Hell, huh?)

"And you're just used to Windows/Mac, if you were just used to Linux it would be fine." No. If you never want to do anything other than use the eight programs that are built for Linux, then fine, use Linux (if your current hardware is supported). If not, you have to become an expert, or use something else.

I have never had a problem with Windows where a solution was "modify this dll file" or "we don't have a driver for that sound card, but some people have taken the driver for this one and tweaked it a bit, and it kind of works; you won't even be able to tell the difference, really. Ignore the buzzing sound your speakers now make."

This isn't the mid to late 90s anymore. Linux, Ubuntu specifically, is more than capable, and very user friendly.

This is my favorite part of what you said, as if I didn't explicitly state I've been routinely trying Linux since 2006.

 

[scotth266]

Giving consumers CHOICES? We can't have that now, can we! Open source must be protected! Stop these companies from making software on our open - oh wait.

In all seriousness, this guy strikes me as being a blowhard. Plenty of people have voted with their wallets: they're fine with Steam, even if it means the slightly inconvenient DRM that Steam uses. If Valve wants to try and tempt Linux users as well, all the more power to them.