We are on the same page. But the only way any kind of "purity" can be maintained is if the user base remains tiny and insignificant. Linux, great idea that is executed poorly. I support open source as much as a possible. But as you said, it's a whole lot of duplication. A unified set of features is what something like this needs. They don't need to neglect the others, but they do need to pick a pony and stick with it.Headdrivehardscrew said:
As many others throughout the topic have pointed out, it means free as in freedom, not free of cost. Free software can still be sold, but must allow access to the source code and (though this could cause issues with commercial software) be re-distributable.Krantos said:
If Microsoft could make their Office suite for Linux it would save me so much headache for migration away from Windows at work, but not gonna happen has long has Linux doesn't capture a decent share on desktop, which is indeed a reason why I need thing like major video games on Linux (the other is so I can fully migrate my personal use to it, and WINE sadly has difficulty with some of the games I play the most), has switching a business' desktops away from Windows is extremely hard due to Office.Headdrivehardscrew said:
Trust me, if anyone out there could possibly amaze you as to how fast they could serve potential Linux customers their favourite flavour of an Office suite, it's Microsoft. They've got the manpower, they've got the brains and if they set their mind to it, they can blow you away.iniudan said:
And as I pointed out, with "(unless you charge for your expertise)" I realize that. They don't however make money by writing a program, releasing the source and then charging for the program. From what I've heard about Red Hat in particular they charge for services that support the system. This is closer to the model used by subscription type games and freemium games then it is to Valve's model that is closer to a traditional selling of a close source product. They aren't going to make money being the middle man that sells something you can get for free. Selling games, as opposed to charging for game related services does not work with open source.Penguinis Weirdus said:
Has there been a serious attempt though to carry out something like this before though? As you correctly pointed out (I must really read the previous posts before quoting), all profit from open-source generally comes from the support as opposed to the actual buy. But linux users being the smaller parts of the market share (bugger all linux users to windows users to spend money of software) probably hasn't made it a pitchable to investors, especially when you get to the bit where you have to say "We have to give the source code away for free" whom I imagine scrambling out of that meeting as quickly as possible to give their money to someone else, who isn't open sourceTwilight_guy said:
Well it could work for subscription and freemium games but as soon as you make it open source you immediately have the problem of the fact that pirates can now easily see your code and circumvent your attempts to charge. With subscription for example, they could simply create there own serves using your code, or reverse engineering from your code, and would have a step up in attempts to hack your servers. The only way to control anything would be to store user data on a secure server and sell things that would affect there side, standard freemium stuff. Even then it seems like a whole lot of trouble to try to try and monetize on open source. I can't really see investors lining up to fund this. As always, small groups of dedicated programmers could develop, and have developed open source games but they don't make money off them. Thus its unlikely for someone to make the equivalent of a triple A game because those cost millions of dollars and doing a million dollar project for free is something that doesn't happen that often. It would be a major undertaken akin to the upkeep and releasing of Linux distributions themselves but for games, something less interesting to your average programmer. In short, its a hard sell.Penguinis Weirdus said:
You forgot to mention that every so often updating Linux breaks everything. Although you do have to understand that the reason a lot of old Linux users don't take your comments seriously is because you don't seem to understand how bad Linux was in the 90s, for people who where heavy users back then new version are very user friendly. Think of it like a old programmer who wrote a lot of assembly code talking about how C is so user friendly that anyone should easily be able to program what ever they want.Azuaron said:
That is probably the best(and most accurate) comparison to Linux I have ever seen. Its also why Linux is unlikely to become mainstream any time soon, it just takes too much knowledge and work to get it up and keep it from dieing.Baby Tea said:
the problem is all those things make sense when your talking about a TOOL, not art or entrainment. I can't rewrite an authors work and then shove it around as something "new" Not unless I rewrite it so much it's a wholly new work. Does he expect a film to be something one can just remake any part of? Because your entitle to that by buying it? And when the DVD doesn't come with way to reshoot any scene or prepackaged editing software is that limiting people's freedom? A game is a crafted experience, same as a show, book, painting or tother wise, his world view based around TOOLS.bobbobberson said:
As a matter of fact, he does believe a film to be something one can just remake any part of, though it gets a bit more complicated. The part about buying it and being entitled is also more complicated. He has also addressed your question about DVDs, or at least explained his view well enough that I can address it.NathanS said:
He also spoke at the college I attend and while he did not have the robe and halo, it was pretty m the same thing. He is a very fanatical person who seems to not even want to consider that there are other options. Any question or comment that was against his views was meet with hostility. While I can agree with some of his views but most I can not, also at the end of the speech he auctioned off a GNU plushy which I thought was ridiculous.AC10 said:
Well you know...Vie said:
He even opposes Harry Potter.lacktheknack said:
Then let them tell us that. And then we'll track down their emails and add them to Richard Stallman's eNewsletter.Vigormortis said:
Oh man. No. Just no. That'd be too cruel. Too evil.lacktheknack said:
It's nothing new. If you listen to him talk or read other stuff he writes, he calls software unethical all the time.canadamus_prime said:
This is really just a warning and reminder that free software isn't just about the games.