GNU Project Founder Calls Steam on Linux "Unethical"

[Hairetos]

I never understood the enforcement of open-source politics in some linux camps. Some distros like Fedora and Debian refuse to package, in their installs, even proprietary drivers sometimes necessary for a system run. I understand that the free, open-source movement is to be given a lot of credit for Linux's current successes, but if it's to evolve, it needs to learn the true meaning of freedom.

Forcing people to use open-source software isn't freedom. Giving them the choice between using proprietary software, drivers, and clients like Steam is true freedom. These ideological wars don't do anything to help the community. In other words, if he doesn't like Steam's corporate, DRM-style philosophy, then he's more than welcome not to download it.

 

[Baby Tea]

Ubuntu was my Linux of choice. Want to play a game? To bad there aren't any.

Well, to start, that's simply not true. There are plenty of games available for Linux. Perhaps not AAA titles, but there are plenty of games available.

With WINE? Better modify your graphics card driver.

Pardon? Never had to do this. I've had to modify a few scripts to launch the game very specifically, but never edit any drivers. I've played plenty of Windows games on Linux before. That beings said, I already admitted the compatibility is pretty low. If what you're trying to run isn't very compatible, then it's not. That's how it goes.

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."

Well I can toss out some anecdotal evidence too, since every time I've searched and asked for solutions to Linux related problems I've been met with very friendly, easy going, helpful people. But I'm sure we both can admit that there are dicks everywhere, in all walks of life. Dicks use Linux, Windows, and OSX. And nice people use those too. Try going to nicer forums?

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?)

That's a pretty fair statement. It's like playing Dwarf Fortress. Once you've been playing it for a while, it can be easy to forget that some people might have a serious problem getting their head around everything you need to do to keep everyone from starving to death in a few days.

I'll be the first to say Linux is far from perfect (Especially in the user-friendly department), but I'll also be the first to say that the only thing keeping me from using it as my full-time OS is the lack of game compatibility. It really doesn't take much work to get 'used' to Linux like you would another operating system. But it certainly does take getting used to.

After all that, let me point this out quickly: You mentioned, and others did too, that game compatibility is very low with Linux. I agree. However, what Valve is doing here isn't setting things up to run in WINE through Steam. They are setting up Steam, and the source engine, to run natively in Linux. No special tweaks. No tweaking with WINE. Running in Linux with Linux drivers for a Linux machine. That is pretty huge. Ubuntu already has remarkable driver support for a huge-ass load of hardware, and now all those drivers will/can be utilized natively running as they are supposed to.

This is why this is a huge deal. Valve coming to Linux isn't about working with WINE. It's about throwing WINE out the window and working with Linux itself. And when they do that and it ends up being successful, others will follow suit. No emulation, or library borrowing. Games made for Linux, running in Linux.

Exciting.

 

[Weaver]

I saw a talk by Richard Stallman at my university. My take away was the guy is borderline insane. He was 2 hours late and the first thing he does is take off his shoes and socks before starting the lecture. Oh, he also has a makeshift halo and a robe he had in his bag, he puts on and proclaims himself the "saint of the church of emacs". I know it's a joke, but I seriously thought he started to believe it. Then at the end of the speech, still in his emacs halo, he took out a bunch of GNU stickers and shirts and crap and tried to hock it too us with an insane markup; like 25 dollars for a sticker... to a bunch of broke university students.

I later spoke to the organizers (I was in computer science and this was put on by the computer science club) and they had no idea he was going to do that.

It was a relatively good speech, but he seemed actually and literally insane at times.

 

[Krat Arona]

Maybe I'm just not "in" with the times but I don't see what the bleeding problem is.

It's a digital game service that the users would CHOOSE to have running on their rig, not something that comes as a required standard. Who gives a flying fuck if a user wants to run Steam on Linux? People have been doing that since before Gabe had even rumored that official addition of support.

 

[Andrew_C]

Stallman seems to have forgotten that the GNU philosophy explicitly includes the freedom to run commercial and closed source software on GNU software and the freedom to profit from GNU software. The only restriction is modifications to GNU licensed software must be shared.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

I love and admire Richard Stallman, but this the very moment where the love of freedom turns into ideological trench warfare.

Valve is a business, and I think the fact that Gabe is willing to try something new he sees potential in vs. slavishly trying to suck up the Win8 crap or bow down to mighty Apple and their shenanigans is pretty much the perfect move at the perfect point in time in my books.

Valve might have DRM, but it comes in a rather friendly form. Even though I've lived through several bouts of services or titles not being available due to some unspecified muck-up, it was extremely rare that my experience was negatively affected. The fact that Valve was the first digital distribution platform that allowed me to have my games both on the main rigs as well as the portables let me feel free and unrestrained in using the titles I bought whichever way I could, there's nothing more you could want to do with independent software and top-dollar titles. If you do not like the idea of having Steam on your Linux rig, then just don't buy anything... these orthodox ideological stances already cost us way more than just VLC on iOS, so I think the message and middle fingers I've been applying to Microsoft and Apple all these years must also go right into the faces of Stallman and other supposedly free thinkers and tinkerers: Don't tread on me, let me make my own decisions, thank you very much. Why is it everybody seems to open their own churches these days, playing preacher, pope, saviour and God all rolled into one? What's wrong with people?

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

Aye. I vividly remember the first time I sat down with the intention to use vi.

It has since become known as the Vogon Intimidator in our household. I felt so very useless and stupid.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

Please don't send people to Stallman's website. It messes with people's heads and it can be the equivalent of a neutron bomb followed by a meteorite storm for relationships.

 

[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.

Please don't send people to Stallman's website. It messes with people's heads and it can be the equivalent of a neutron bomb followed by a meteorite storm for relationships.

Oh, come on. I could have sent them to Timecube instead.

 

[RThaiRThai]

Free Means Freedom, not Zero Price, but Vie's Right

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.

No, Vie is right. I'm a huge supporter of free (as in freedom, not zero price) software, but the definition of both free software and open source software includes the freedom to distribute it. It's true that one could provide source code without allowing open distribution, but that would no longer be open source or free software.

The important point is that free software supporters aren't against making money off of software. It's just a consequence of free software that traditional models of monetizing software don't necessarily work. In my opinion, this extends into a debate going beyond free software and into issues of modern copyright.

Stallman Supports Free Software, Not Open Source Software

I would also like to make clear that Richard Stallman does not support open source software, he supports free software. The article paraphrased him and used the term closed source software because people are more familiar with the term. What further confuses this is that, as far as I understand, all open source software is free software, and all free software is open source software. However, these terms also refer to ideological movements, and Richard Stallman is part of the free software movement, considering open source a watered down version which while promoting the right type of software, fails to promote the importance of freedom. Software that is not free is called proprietary software, not closed source software.

Moddable Games and DRM Free Games Are not Necessarily Open Source or Free Games

I just want to make that clear.

What's the Problem? I'll Explain.

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

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...

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?

I think you're missing something. First, I alredy explained why Valve games despite being modded are still closed source and proprietary. You're right that this won't necessarily bring a flood of games to GNU/Linux, though I certainly think it will bring many more than there currently are. That's not the problem.

My answer I think addresses a couple other people, so they're getting quoted as well.

Maybe I'm just not "in" with the times but I don't see what the bleeding problem is.

It's a digital game service that the users would CHOOSE to have running on their rig, not something that comes as a required standard. Who gives a flying fuck if a user wants to run Steam on Linux? People have been doing that since before Gabe had even rumored that official addition of support.

Stallman seems to have forgotten that the GNU philosophy explicitly includes the freedom to run commercial and closed source software on GNU software and the freedom to profit from GNU software. The only restriction is modifications to GNU licensed software must be shared.

I think this is certainly a good thing, and users certainly have the freedom to run anything they want on their computers including closed source proprietary software, but the concern is that this may dilute the free software message. It's analogous to whether any depictions of violence in fiction should be censored to protect the children. I would argue that they shouldn't, but it does mean that parents need to be more careful about teaching their kids right, whether they choose to show their kids violent fiction or not. Censoring violence doesn't mean parents don't have to be good parents, but it makes it easier to avoid accidentally letting a little kid see something horrific and traumatizing.

That's what I see this as. A parental warning from Richard Stallman that this could be a good thing, but it's also still not free software. This could make it easier for people to start using GNU/Linux thinking that Steam is a victory for free software when it really isn't.

Stallman hasn't forgotten that we have the freedom to run proprietary software. He's just giving us a warning, and making sure we don't become complacent thinking that this alone is the freedom that free software is striving for.

GNU/Linux Has No Games, It's Hard to Use, and It Sucks

I agree. I love GNU/Linux. It's my main operating system and I'm using it right now, but I'll admit that it lacks games. Sure, there are games around, but I'm not at all satisfied with what's available. I use Windows for games.

As for it being hard to use, I find that a tricky debate to get into. Someone said that it's made for beginners or experts, and the people who want to do more than the basics but also arent' expert enough to deal with the peculiarities of GNU/Linux get screwed over. That depends on where you draw the line and what you think the average user wants to do, but I think it's a reasonable assessment. I certainly can't find anything as good as Flash and whatever the hottest video editing software is as free software. I use Kdenlive for video editting and it's good enough, but I can imagine why someone who edits videos more than I do would be unsatisfied.

But a lot of people only need to browse the web and occasionally use a word editor. A lot of people.

But it's true. GNU/Linux has its problems. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xkgahANeq14

My Lapse of Belief in Free Software
I heavily support free software, but there's a key aspect of Stallman's ideology that I can't wrap my head around. Never sacrifice freedom for convenience, or something like that. It sounds nice, but I can't think of any reason why it should be the right thing to do. I'd really really like to do some animation in Flash. Copyright has a lot of issues, but using copyright and enforcing it to some extent by selling binaries is a pretty good way to incentivise creation of software. I don't see why we can't have some balance.

I think it's good that Stallman doesn't compromise and that it pushes free software forward and I applaud anybody else who does so, but I see it as something he does as a sacrifice to make the world a better place. I'm not sure the world as a whole would be better off if everybody stopped using proprietary software.

 

[bobbobberson]

There are several issues here that I think are not being addressed in the most effective manner this is likely because will Stallman is clearly a principled and also very intelligent person his views are fairly radical and he insists on using his choice of language. The posting of pieces of this statement without the context given on his website is likely to cause confusion as this statement is really an article on the website intended for people familiar with his language use this was not a statement made to a news organisation.

Firstly as has been stated previously by free Stallman means free as in freedom not beer. Stallman is frequently disappointed that the English language doesn't have a word suitable to make this distinction while others so often do. Stallman would state that "free" software would need to meet the following conditions.
"The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
The freedom to study how the program works, and adapt it to your needs (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor (freedom 2).
The freedom to improve the program, and release your improvements to the public, so that the whole community benefits (freedom 3). Access to the source code is a precondition for this."
this is from the GNU website.

Another distinction that is clear in his statement is that he wants the game engines to be opensource not the art which is a different issue. I imagine he would not be against the idea of people paying money for games.

Finally I would like to make a personal comment on the idea of "user friendliness" I would argue that Linux is still "user friendly" it is just a better friend because it doesn't treat you like a child for many tasks command line and text editors are more efficient in many ways linux is a more usable sytem once you understand and get to know it even if at first it is may be more difficult to use than linux.

 

[bobbobberson]

If anyone wants any good background on Stallman free software of just a good read then they should read hackers heroes of the computer revolution

 

[Krantos]

< He went on to say that non-free programs, game or otherwise, are "unethical because they deny freedom to their users."

Wait, what?

I'm reminded of this comic:

Spoiler

I'm sorry, but games cost money to make. I PAY for games so the makers can make MORE games, which I then pay for so even MORE games can be made.

If he want's to disapprove of Steam because it's basically DRM, that's fine. I might not agree, but I can certainly see where the argument comes from.

But to oppose it because the GAME aren't FREE???? That's just dumb.

Me thinks someone has their head somewhere it shouldn't be.

I want Steam to come to Linux, so I can ditch Windows. I don't like Windows, but I need it to play games. That's pretty much where it starts and ends.

 

[deathninja]

I'm OK with open source, just not the rabid fanaticism (I had a college tutor who forced us to program *everything* in Caml, on the Unix rigs). While Steam would appear to be the antithesis, it opens up the platform to a larger base who may or may not want to go furhter down the rabbit hole of open source.

So more of an epithany than Pandora's Box.

(For the record, I like a few of the Linux/Unix builds, it's just most chem/crystallography/stats software is Win only).

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

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.

Please don't send people to Stallman's website. It messes with people's heads and it can be the equivalent of a neutron bomb followed by a meteorite storm for relationships.

Oh, come on. I could have sent them to Timecube instead.

AAAH! WHAT IS IT! WHAT THE...

To be honest, I still admire Stallman, even though I meanwhile no longer share a growing pile of his views and ideals. I think he can still be a great inspiration for anyone bothering to care. But there are reasons Linus Torvalds' little idea in 1991 has grown to be the silent revolution that is the Linux kernel we've grown to love/hate and play around and work with, and build great things around, while Stallman's GNU Hurd, which started earlier, is still pretty much... nowhere. I used to consider him a genius, now I just think he's exceptional... and, yeah, growingly eccentric.

 

[RThaiRThai]

To be honest, I still admire Stallman, even though I meanwhile no longer share a growing pile of his views and ideals. I think he can still be a great inspiration for anyone bothering to care. But there are reasons Linus Torvalds' little idea in 1991 has grown to be the silent revolution that is the Linux kernel we've grown to love/hate and play around and work with, and build great things around, while Stallman's GNU Hurd, which started earlier, is still pretty much... nowhere. I used to consider him a genius, now I just think he's exceptional... and, yeah, growingly eccentric.

Maybe you already know all this, but I'll just tell you in case you don't or forgot it or knew it but haven't been thinking it. Just a reminder of why Stallman is awesome despite not having made a popular kernel.

Remember that Richard Stallman wrote the GNU Compiler Collection, GNU Debugger, Emacs, and possibly some other less famous stuff. He's no slouch in terms of software contributions either, and it's been argued that while the Linux kernel was valuable, the compiler and debugger were far more valuable for allowing the creating of all this free software. Emacs is probably less important (I'm not saying it's bad, I'm just saying there are other editors out there).

And then people also argue that it's Stallman's creating of GNU and the GNU License that allowed the Linux kernel to have a good license in the first place which allowed it to spread. It's the license that allowed all sorts of software to be free and promote more freedom. Linux is just a kernel.

And it's Stallmans' spearheading of the whole free software movement, which spawned its sibling the open source movement, which made all that stuff happen in the first place.

To avoid giving him too much credit, perhaps there were others who would've taken his place and he just happened to be the voice to stand out, but he's definitely done a lot.

But yeah. Hurd sucks compared to the Linux kernel, and Stallman abandoned that thing ages ago (or at least said it didn't matter that much). Stallman's pretty eccentric.

Not to say Linus Torvalds isn't awesome, but everybody already knows that. And it's been said that git may end up being his most valuable and contribution when historians look back, not the Linux kernel.

 

[Baresark]

He doesn't understand what is happening here. The inclusion of a pay service or the use of DRM on an open source system does not change the fact that it is about user freedom. Denying customers the ability to pay for digital goods on your platform is antifreedom as well.

Also, this is key to bring Linux to minds of people looking for Windows or Mac alternatives. In the simplest terms, it is Kahneman's famous Availability Heuristic (if you think of it, it must be important). When people think of OS's for computers, what do they think of? They think of MacOS and Windows because they see advertisements of them everywhere. This will bring Linux to minds of people looking for those alternatives. It just seems idiotic to me that he would take a stance against this if he indeed wants people to use this platform. Open source fails to succeed on the same level as pay systems for the simple reason of advertising. People only call on the things they can think of. That is why Linux is used everywhere but few people even think about it as a viable alternative to other systems. Not because it's more complicated, not because it's somehow inferior, but because it is not available on quick recall.

 

[Penguinis Weirdus]

Thus we see why Linux has never been a gaming platform, open source is not profitable. It's many good things but it certainly isn't something you do for a living (unless you charge for your expertise). If everything always fit the Linux ideal, its unlikely to ever have an major games on it. Still, if they want Linux to be used by more user, you have to make sacrifices to make it more appealing. Course sometimes wide spread use doesn't matter as much as holding onto ideals. Makes me wonder what the world would be like if Unix systems had become wide-spread early on and maintained there popularity and Windows was now the minority market share.

I would like to call you out on the fact that Oracle and Red Hat both make larrrge sums of cash and are built upon the GNU Free Software ideas

 

[iniudan]

Bringing Steam to Linux can open the doors to Linux for thousands of gamers, who may have never otherwise tried Linux as an alternative. This is very very exciting.
But it also brings with it the possibility of other big businesses pushing their way into the world and platform of Linux. Businesses who may not hold to the ideals of Linux, or as least understands them, as well as Gabe Newell seems to. Steam is a powerhouse, undeniably, and with this push (Depending on it's success) comes the very real possibility of a proverbial 'flood' of unscrupulous software and game companies looking to make a buck in the once free land of Linux.

Yes, but has an IT I need those software company, has to be able to convince management to make a full switch to Linux, for most of the highly used specialized productivity software come from them.

And for more general productivity software at least LibreOffice catching up at a good pace and OpenOffice might do a come back, now that it left in hand of Apache along donation of IBM Lotus Symphony, so might bring out something that will be on par with MS Office, which really are the only MS softwares which have been ahead of the competition and main reason business are stuck with Windows, for they are the software that will be a real major pain in the ass to migrate due to the quantity of data associated with them.

 

[Headdrivehardscrew]

He doesn't understand what is happening here. The inclusion of a pay service or the use of DRM on an open source system does not change the fact that it is about user freedom. Denying customers the ability to pay for digital goods on your platform is antifreedom as well.

I think what is too important to neglect is the possibility, the necessity of having to assume to be the only, or at least the most probable truth: He knows and understands what is going on, but he remains pure and wants us all to resist temptation.

The way I currently see it is this:

If Gabe Newell follows through with this sensational brain fart in public, and I believe he might just have said that out aloud so he has motivation to get his personal and corporate ass up and really put his weight into it and make it happen, this might very well be the decisive turning point where graphics adapter and sound solution drivers might finally get unified, removing a whole lot of the duplication going on in the Linux world as we speak.

If people follow the games, they're bound to discover free office software and free email clients they can put to use. They might rediscover the power of Google. They might want to stay a little while longer, or they might want to stay with Linux for good once they figure out they can really do everything they need and want to do for free or just for less, and they might actually and finally embrace the idea of paying for programs they can easily obtain from Cydia the integrated marketplace solution. This is pretty much the bogeyman that must have been stalking the folks at Redmond and Cupertino from time to time during the past decade. If Newell manages to get people playing on Linux, he might just manage to get people playing with Linux, and I think we've never been closer to getting a scenario where the possibility of getting Photoshop onto Linux has ever been more feasible.

If Microsoft is willing to make the prices a bit more friendly, hell, I'd even buy Microsoft Office for Linux if they were willing to put in the effort to make it the standard without making me feel like a cheap whore in the process. I like LibreOffice, I really do, but my heart beats for Microsoft Office, as I'm too old and stubborn to jump ship every couple of months.