Just out of curiosity, do you think that licensing your posts under CC BY-NC-SA 4.0 makes it illegal to use them to train an AI? If so, why do you think that? I post GPL licensed code online, so I’m interested in this topic.
If you write code, you might be aware of the AI coding assistants out there. Most notable is probably Github’s Copilot. Well, that AI assistant has an ongoing case against it to answer the question you’re asking. So, just like you add a GPL (or other) license to your code, creative commons licenses are for text and media that aren’t code and I add it to my comments.
Whether they will have an impact has yet to be determined, so we’ll see if creative commons with a non-commercial clause is for naught or not.
Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash #!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash’ cat “$0” echo ':::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte “keydown Control_L” “key V” “keyup Control_L”
You do realise there are different software licenses, right and that they aren’t all permissive? Also, the license I’m using is permissive for non-commercial uses.
Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash #!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash’ cat “$0” echo ':::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte “keydown Control_L” “key V” “keyup Control_L”
Anything you write should be proprietary by default. So I don’t think you have to add this license to your comments just to achieve your goal. But it makes sense if you also want to give some extra rights to people.
If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something? I’m curious what the courts will decide, though.
I don’t want to help Microsoft, but some of the arguments made in that article are strange. If AI means the end of software licenses, that means the end of copyright, which is a good thing. When AI gets better, we might be able to feed it leaked or decompiled source code and get something that we can legally use. That’s not the current situation, though. At the moment Microsoft uses libre, copylefted software to improve their proprietary program and that’s bad. But I don’t think we can do anything about it other than telling people to not use it.
My stance is just staunchly anti-commercial and I would rather see a non-commercial AI be allowed to use my text than a commercial one. Whether copyright law will reflect that is hitherto unknown - at least in the EU and the US, I think. Japan has already made a ruling that copyright doesn’t exist for AI - or so I understand it. IANAL
If AI reads your code, but the output is something entirely different, why would that be illegal? Isn’t that the same as a human reading something?
That line of reasoning is logical, however copyright has never made any sense to me. “Likeness” can be copyrighted. Copying a copyrighted work is not allowed, but coming up with a solution that is nigh identical to another in a “clean room” is legal. Using old black and white mickey mouse is now public domain, but adding color suddenly makes it illegal. Learning something proprietary on the job and using it immediately at another employer is illegal but wait a year and it’s legal even though the old employer never updated the solution.
It makes no sense to me and doesn’t seem logical at all 🤷 Laws are like scientific models: attempts at making sense of the world. Some are better than others.
Anti Commercial AI thingyCC BY-NC-SA 4.0Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash #!/usr/bin/env nix-shell #!nix-shell -i bash --packages xautomation xclip sleep 0.2 (echo '::: spoiler Anti Commercial AI thingy [CC BY-NC-SA 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/) Inserted with a keystroke running this script on linux with X11 bash’ cat “$0” echo ':::') | xclip -selection clipboard xte “keydown Control_L” “key V” “keyup Control_L”
The ironic part here is that NixOS and Steam don’t really play that well together: Nothing is where pre-built binaries expect it to be on NixOS, including ld.so, so pre-built binaries simply won’t run without patching. NixOS can do that for Steam… but as Steam is also downloading binaries, essentially being its own package manager, those binaries then run into the same issue.
OTOH you can just run the whole shebang in a chroot, exposing exactly what Steam expects (couple of libraries and the graphics drivers) which is what NixOS does and I never had any issues.
Another hurdle would be that NixOS is not end-user friendly. It just hasn’t been a focus, Valve would need to write a graphical configuration/package management utility. NixOS also doesn’t tend to go easy on disk space and network bandwidth which might be considerations, OTOH probably not an issue if they manage their own release channel. Things like flatpack also aren’t an issue they get the same treatment Steam does.
Steam (and other parts of SteamOS) is non free software, it can do anything on your system and there is no easy way for you to change that or even know what it does. Valve developers put themselves in a position of power over you. They keep secrets from you on your own device. This in itself is unethical, but they also abuse their users with DRM. How can you say that you have control in this case?
DRM is what publishers and developers want. If Valve didn’t have DRM they wouldn’t be anywhere near as big as they are today. The influx of developers happened when Steam released their DRM for the public.
Yes, but those aren’t the companies that would have replaced Steam if they weren’t successful. It would’ve been a company like Microsoft, EA, Ubisoft, or Blizzard who would’ve taken over the game distribution market. Valve is a saint compared to any of those companies. As much as we wish for everything to be DRM free it would never happen. At least not with the current market. Also, the average person doesn’t care about DRM. They don’t understand the implications of what makes an ethical market. They just want to install a game and hit start.
Valve is an enemy of freedom. It doesn’t matter if they abuse us less than other companies. They are still an unethical company.
As much as we wish for everything to be DRM free it would never happen.
If you don’t fight for it, then of course it won’t happen. Also I’m pretty sure you could say this about any difficult problem: Free Software, privacy, global warming, wars. You could say that we will never solve those issues, so why bother doing anything?
Also, the average person doesn’t care about DRM. They don’t understand the implications of what makes an ethical market. They just want to install a game and hit start.
An average person doesn’t mind running Windows either. But we still try to build a better world for ourselves and we try to convince others to join us.
They are DRM-free. I can send you a copy of those games and you can run them on your computer. Without you having to log in anywhere or install an additional proprietary application. Without anyone verifying anything. Isn’t that amazing?
By that definition Steam is DRM free too. I can download tons of my games, pack and send them to you and they’ll work. My rough estimate is that about half of all games are like that. Half of the remaining games rely on Steam environment for community or multiplayer functionality.
Some games on Steam are DRM-free and you can play them without running Steam. That is good, but you still need the proprietary Steam client to download them and Steam doesn’t tell you which games have DRM before you buy them. gog.com and itch.io prove that this can be done better.
Most of them don’t, but some do. Just like with programs and apps.
Do they provide ethical installers?
They don’t provide any, you just download the game itself. Or you can use their Free Software client, which will download and update the games for you.
Steam OS is easy, you can install literally any other distro. With regards to steam itself sadly we don’t live in a fairytale land where everything can be FOSS, there aren’t enough people motivated to work for free. Steam drm is great it makes publisher executives happy, while being extremely easy to crack.
Steam OS is easy, you can install literally any other distro.
You can say the same about Windows. You can replace it with another OS, but that doesn’t make it ethical.
With regards to steam itself sadly we don’t live in a fairytale land where everything can be FOSS, there aren’t enough people motivated to work for free.
If everyone had this attitude, there would be no Free Software at all. It took 40 years of hard work to get to where we are right now. I don’t understand why you think that anyone has to work for free. Free Software is about freedom, not price. Itch.io is a store that has a Free Software client (and it’s optional - you don’t even have to use it). Valve could do the same, but they don’t want to.
Steam drm is great it makes publisher executives happy, while being extremely easy to crack.
Yes, it’s great that publishers can abuse us and that you need a proprietary app on your system and be logged in to an account to play singleplayer games. Thanks Valve.
Also the Linux kernel and possibly some drivers according to the FSF: www.gnu.org/distros/common-distros.html. But I don’t know how to verify that last part.
How does Valve prevent you from controlling your own device? Their version of Linux isn’t locked down, you can fully customize it like any Linux afaik.
Their system (and the Steam client) is proprietary, which means you can’t easily see what the software does or change it. If you can’t control the software then you don’t control the device. People deserve to have the 4 essential freedoms. This is why Windows is bad and it’s the same with SteamOS.
SteamOS is only bad when you expect it to support a variety of hardware. They promised to release it as a standalone and it’s still not there yet, too bad.
You are correct about Steam client though. Even if they keep the internals closed, the GUI part alone would be worth forking. I wish a chrome-less version would exist.
Steam Deck is a computer, so its users deserve to have full control over it just like their PC or smartphone.
You are correct about Steam client though. Even if they keep the internals closed, the GUI part alone would be worth forking. I wish a chrome-less version would exist.
If people can’t easily modify it, then its developers have power over users. You have to trust that they will not abuse that power, but they already do - with DRM for example.
I get that it sucks when a device is locked, because you might need to install a different OS for a multitude of reasons, but as long as you are able to install whatever you want I dont blame the manufacturer.
You don’t have to use SteamOS and you don’t have to use Windows, but that doesn’t change the fact that they are unethical operating systems designed to take away user’s freedom. You can’t easily know what it does on your device or change it. It keeps secrets from you. Steam also restricts you with DRM. So unless you are fine with Valve becoming another Microsoft, we need to criticize them for doing this.
I’m okay with valve replacing microsoft as the go-to proprietary operating system
You have to recognize that having an open source almost everything except a single program (steam) is better than what windows is doing by miles, right?
You can’t win everything, steam is never going to stop being proprietary, but steam will cause open source to flourish with the caveat that it itself is not open source. The issue is not as black and white as you’re making it seem.
Plus if steam wins, getting people to switch to fully open source operating systems will be a lot easier.
Then you don’t care about freedom and having control over your computer. That’s a shame. I think you should.
You have to recognize that having an open source almost everything except a single program (steam) is better than what windows is doing by miles, right?
But is that actually true? There is no source code for SteamOS 3. How do you know how many packages are proprietary? Even one nonfree package is unethical. People deserve to have control over their computers, I don’t care if it’s currently a little better than Windows.
You can’t win everything, steam is never going to stop being proprietary
This is irrelevant. We should still try to make the world better and fight the injustice. If gamers realized this 10 years ago, maybe we would have this problem solved by now.
The issue is not as black and white as you’re making it seem.
You can’t have freedom when someone is actively trying to take it away from you. We have to get rid of proprietary software. If we accept the abuse from those companies, nothing will change. We’ve been fighting this battle for 40 years now. Those companies want to give you an illusion of freedom, so that they can pretend that they are good. They are using the work of Free Software volunteers to build a prison for you.
Plus if steam wins, getting people to switch to fully open source operating systems will be a lot easier.
No, there is no Free Software alternative to Steam and there is no reason to believe that Valve will release its source code.
You are making an assumption that Valve won’t make their system even more proprietary. But why wouldn’t they if their fans are ok with this? They’re already abusing their power with Steam. Giving them more power will only make the abuse worse.
I do care about this, I just believe your path will move nothing at all whereas valve is making linux a viable option and contributing to open source immensely, their client is built on completely free software and you can easily uninstall it, they can’t fork linux and gnu or any of their drivers to make it proprietary so I don’t know what you’re worried about
This path has lead us to where we are today, which is why companies want to blur the line between free and nonfree software, because it’s the only way they can slow down the progress of our movement. Microsoft also contributes to “Open Source” and that’s great, but they also abuse their users, which wrong. It’s similar with Valve. The Steam client is proprietary. Sure, you can remove it, just like you can remove Windows from a computer too, but that doesn’t make Windows ethical. Linux is already proprietary by default - it contains binary blobs without source code. So Arch is already a nonfree OS, Valve is just making it even more proprietary. I see a lot of people falling for the same traps over and over again and I’m worried that the majority of us will never learn to avoid them.
Do you not understand that the GPL has made it so that valve can’t do that?
To be concerned about what you’re concerned about, valve would have to violate the GPL
Valve puts one piece of commercial software on a completely FOSS operating system, this is nothing like windows, and i’m sorry but you sound delusional. Why would valve make more of the OS proprietary than steam? How could they? If they wanted to, why would they not use BSD?
Since the OS comes with Steam, clearly having some GPL licensed packages doesn’t prevent them from adding proprietary packages and not all software is GPL licensed. Also Android and SailfishOS exist and both are proprietary.
Valve puts one piece of commercial software on a completely FOSS operating system, this is nothing like windows, and i’m sorry but you sound delusional.
There is nothing wrong with commercial software. The issue is with proprietary software, because it takes away user’s freedom. Free Software can be commercial too. It doesn’t matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary. Google Chrome is not Free Software just because it’s based on Chromium, which is a Free Software project. Android is based on Free Software and it’s also proprietary. Their goal is to blur the line and it’s clearly working. I’m not denying that SteamOS is more free than Windows, but it’s still bad and since they can get away with this, I suspect it will keep getting worse just like other proprietary operating systems.
If they wanted to, why would they not use BSD?
This is irrelevant. They chose whatever was the most convenient and the cheapest. Companies use Free Software projects to make proprietary software all the time. Valve at least contributes to projects, but they abuse their users by denying them freedom and that’s the main issue.
Since the OS comes with Steam, clearly having some GPL licensed packages doesn’t prevent them from adding proprietary packages and not all software is GPL licensed. Also Android and SailfishOS exist and both are proprietary.
…again, why would they? They’ve thrown all these resources into helping foss, why would they perform a massive duplication of effort and create more than steam? What could the possible benefit be? I don’t see any incentive whatsoever to do that. If you don’t like steam you uninstall it and enjoy all the benefits that valve is giving us.
There is nothing wrong with commercial software. The issue is with proprietary software, because it takes away user’s freedom. Free Software can be commercial too[1]. It doesn’t matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary. Google Chrome is not Free Software just because it’s based on Chromium, which is a Free Software project. Android is based on Free Software and it’s also proprietary. Their goal is to blur the line and it’s clearly working. I’m not denying that SteamOS is more free than Windows, but it’s still bad and since they can get away with this, I suspect it will keep getting worse just like other proprietary operating systems.
I’m aware of this, I’m just completely unaware of what malicious thing you’re implying valve will possibly do, other than make steam itself worse, which, again, if you don’t like steam, you’ll still be reaping massive benefits, they’re paying many full time developers to do literally nothing but make linux better. Steamos is not worth taking issue with, STEAM ITSELF is where you should point your attention.
In the same way I wouldn’t worry if somebody made a version of debian with google chrome preinstalled, I’m not worried about steamos. It’s worse for freedom, if you use that version of debian, but pragmatically, how much does this matter? All you need steam for is to play video games, you uninstall steam and then steamos is literally just immutable arch linux.
This isn’t an android-like situation even remotely, android simply uses the linux kernel, valve uses full desktop FOSS linux.
…again, why would they? They’ve thrown all these resources into helping foss, why would they perform a massive duplication of effort and create more than steam? What could the possible benefit be? I don’t see any incentive whatsoever to do that. If you don’t like steam you uninstall it and enjoy all the benefits that valve is giving us.
Why do companies make proprietary software and operating systems at all? Because they think it will make them the most money. Why is Steam proprietary? Why is Valve keeping secrets from their users? They could do the ethical thing and make it Free Software.
I’m aware of this, I’m just completely unaware of what malicious thing you’re implying valve will possibly do, other than make steam itself worse, which, again, if you don’t like steam, you’ll still be reaping massive benefits, they’re paying many full time developers to do literally nothing but make linux better.
Making proprietary software is already unethical by itself, because users can’t control it. They already do other malicious things like restrict their users with DRM. I’m glad that Valve, Microsoft and other companies contribute to Free Software. They deserve to be praised for this, but it shouldn’t distract us from the evil things they do, which we should criticize. Why can’t we praise Valve for the good things and criticize them for the bad things?
Steamos is not worth taking issue with, STEAM ITSELF is where you should point your attention.
Steam is part of SteamOS, so I criticize both.
In the same way I wouldn’t worry if somebody made a version of debian with google chrome preinstalled, I’m not worried about steamos. It’s worse for freedom, if you use that version of debian, but pragmatically, how much does this matter? All you need steam for is to play video games, you uninstall steam and then steamos is literally just immutable arch linux.
For me personally it doesn’t matter, because I will never use such system. But I want other people to have freedom, I want to live in a free society. For that to happen we must destroy proprietary software, not include it in our distros and pretend that nothing is wrong. I don’t want to see people spied on, restricted by DRM and abused in other ways. That’s wrong, so we have to talk about it and show people that it doesn’t have to be like this.
Why do companies make proprietary software and operating systems at all? Because they think it will make them the most money. Why is Steam proprietary? Why is Valve keeping secrets from their users? They could do the ethical thing and make it Free Software.
Steam is proprietary because they want to make money, they aren’t making the operating system from scratch, their goal is to sell stuff on the steam store. Why are they using linux instead of BSD for this, if you think that they have some other scheme? I’m against proprietary software, but the fact is, this extremely optional proprietary software for exclusively gaming is the reason linux is going to get users, a shitload of work done, and will be a usable operating system for anyone. If you don’t like steam, just don’t install it, and no proprietary software will hurt you, and you won’t ever need to install it.
Making proprietary software is already unethical by itself, because users can’t control it. They already do other malicious things like restrict their users with DRM. I’m glad that Valve, Microsoft and other companies contribute to Free Software. They deserve to be praised for this, but it shouldn’t distract us from the evil things they do, which we should criticize. Why can’t we praise Valve for the good things and criticize them for the bad things?
Because you’re criticising them for steamos, which is not proprietary, except for the steam client itself. Criticise the steam client, not steamos.
Steam is part of SteamOS, so I criticize both.
Steam is a single piece of software put upon a completely FOSS operating system, steamos is just immutable arch linux. You can even uninstall steam.
For me personally it doesn’t matter, because I will never use such system. But I want other people to have freedom, I want to live in a free society. For that to happen we must destroy proprietary software, not include it in our distros and pretend that nothing is wrong. I don’t want to see people spied on, restricted by DRM and abused in other ways. That’s wrong, so we have to talk about it and show people that it doesn’t have to be like this.
They do have freedom, they can easily uninstall steam, and steam doesn’t have control over their system because the entire operating system is FOSS, they just have the steam client, which is a completely optional extension and can’t be used for harm when it’s closed. It being proprietary is undoubtedly a bad thing, but that doesn’t make steamos bad, that just makes steam itself bad.
If your goal is to get as many people using as much FOSS software as possible, steam is your ally. It’s what’s getting people to switch to linux in huge numbers, it will push open source forward, not backwards. Your thinking is far too black and white. If steam didn’t exist, and all these developers weren’t working on linux, I wouldn’t even be a linux user, and MANY MANY others would never consider using linux. Because of valves work, linux is usable for an entire massive additional group of people. The same is not even a little true for, say, microsoft, who only help linux in a way that doesn’t harm windows.
My point is that Steam doesn’t have to be proprietary. You can make money in an ethical way with Free Software. Itch.io does this by providing a Free Software client. There is no excuse for making nonfree software. I don’t know why they didn’t use BSD like Sony did, but it really doesn’t matter.
If something contains proprietary software, then it’s proprietary. I know that you can turn SteamOS into a Free Software system. At the very least you would have to remove Steam (this is easy), use a Linux kernel without proprietary blobs (might be harder, but Arch has the same issue) and maybe some other things (I don’t know about the drivers). It’s nice that this is possible, but it’s still proprietary by default and that is wrong.
My priority is not for GNU/Linux (or any other particular OS) to get the most users. It’s not the goal of the Free Software movement. The goal is for people to use Free Software and for proprietary software to be destroyed. Valve makes proprietary software, so they are working against us. If your goal is for people to have freedom and control over their devices, you should criticize those actions too. You can do that, while also praising Valve for the good things that they do. Maybe Valve can change and become better, but if not then at least people should be aware of the situation. If you are against proprietary software, then you should understand that Steam being proprietary is bad for us. But maybe you care about features more than freedom - then we probably won’t agree on this.
If your goal is to get as many people using as much FOSS software as possible, steam is your ally.
I want people to eventually use fully free systems. It can be a gradual process, but this won’t happen if we don’t make our end goal clear to people. Companies that make nonfree software won’t do this - they use the term Open Source to avoid talking about freedom and avoid mentioning that proprietary software is bad. So we have to do this ourselves. You can you Steam and SteamOS if you want and at the same time tell people that we can do better than that. That’s all you have to do - just accept that they current situation isn’t perfect and that we can work on improving it.
I do criticize those things, my goal is to get as many people using free software as possible, valves work with steam has enabled that, also, you say the goal is to get as many people to use free software as possible while saying the goal isn’t number of users, that’s a contradiction.
i don’t have a problem criticizing steam for being proprietary, I just recognize that steam is massively beneficial to FOSS and from a pragmatic standpoint they are nothing like and will never become nearly as big of a problem as windows
My goal isn’t to increase the number of GNU/Linux users at all cost. I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it, unless it’s only a temporary solution for them. If people stop using one proprietary platform only to be trapped in another without realizing it, then something went wrong. Some people ditch Android only to use SailfishOS. Or they ditch Twitter only to use Threads. So I hope those new GNU/Linux users who know nothing about the Free Software movement don’t get trapped again.
Steam is an unethical DRM platform, so I will always criticize it regardless if it makes people switch to GNU/Linux.
You’re still not listening to me, or yourself, really.
My goal isn’t to increase the number of GNU/Linux users at all cost.
Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all. What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.
There’s no situation where one more person switching to steamos isn’t switching from windows where they were also using steam, this means every single person that steam converts is a massive net positive. Do you see how that is not “at all costs” at all?
I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it, unless it’s only a temporary solution for them.
There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there’d be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.
If people stop using one proprietary platform only to be trapped in another without realizing it, then something went wrong.
Steam ain’t that. It’s video games. And nothing else.
Some people ditch Android only to use SailfishOS. Or they ditch Twitter only to use Threads. So I hope those new GNU/Linux users who know nothing about the Free Software movement don’t get trapped again.
Steam isn’t going to be what “traps” them or anything, especially when it’s sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all. This is a massive win over using windows. Which anybody who is switching to steamos is certainly already on and wouldn’t switch to linux without it under any circumstances.
Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all.
You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn’t make them ethical.
What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.
It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.
There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there’d be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.
But those people don’t care about their freedom. That’s the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can’t let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.
Steam ain’t that. It’s video games. And nothing else.
Games are software. If you can’t control what they do on your device, then you don’t control the device.
Steam isn’t going to be what “traps” them or anything, especially when it’s sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all.
You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won’t try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn’t they? Their users don’t even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can’t see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.
You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn’t make them ethical.
I’m using that excuse to justify steamos vs windows, you’re assuming a vacuum, I do believe proprietary software is bad, just that you’re fighting the wrong battle.
It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.
“I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it”
“It doesn’t matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary.”
The entire time my point has been steamos isn’t worth criticising because it’s just archlinux with steam, criticize steam. I’m totally fine with criticising steam, i’m not fine with criticising steamos, because it is literally just linux but with steam preinstalled. All of your issues are simply issues with steam, not steamos.
But those people don’t care about their freedom. That’s the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can’t let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.
That won’t change, they simply do not have the same values as you, so, be pragmatic and try to make FOSS software outcompete proprietary software, in this case, we need steam, we need people to move to linux as much as possible, and only once we have everyone on FOSS operating systems, THEN we attack the clients, that should be the order of operations. Steam is absolutely still bad because it’s proprietary but steamos is a good thing for the free software movement.
You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won’t try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn’t they? Their users don’t even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can’t see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.
I’m not saying they wouldn’t, i’m saying they’ve structured things in a way that they literally cannot, there’s no path to do that for them, that’s why if they wanted to do that they would’ve HAD to use BSD, there is no choice for them in the matter because this is based on linux.
Here is an article from the FSF explaining why we should avoid making such compromises: www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html . They probably explain this a lot better than me, so if it doesn’t convince you, then probably nothing will.
Can you explain what parts of SteamOS are not controllable in a way that makes it more restricted than Arch, which it is based on?
Valve won’t release the source code and I don’t use it, so it’s hard for me to tell which packages are proprietary and which are not. Steam client for sure is proprietary and it comes with the OS. Arch by default is Free Software (other than proprietary blobs in the kernel) and you can audit what each program does and modify it. With SteamOS you can’t do that, because Valve keeps secrets from you on your own device.
[If the account owns the game - allow user to download and run the game] is a DRM sure… But it’s kind of fair, no?
To play any game you have to install and run the proprietary Steam client and be logged in to an account. Even to play singleplayer games. Even if you bought a physical disc. There are stores that don’t do this: gog.com and itch.io. They provide an optional client for convenience, but you can just download a game’s installer from the website and install it on any PC any time you want. In case of Itch the client is Free Software so anyone can see what it does and modify it.
That doesn’t mean you can’t control how it works. Most people don’t need sources of their Linux distros to use them as they want. It would be cool to have the source, but you wouldn’t expect them to have an official maintained repo since they spend much more resources on actual hardware that needs this distro.
Steam client for sure is proprietary and it comes with the OS
Yeah it seems to also be the only thing that is proprietary in SteamOS too.
To play any game you have to install and run the proprietary Steam client and be logged in to an account.
Are you clueless or what? There are too many ways to do what you want with SteamOS. You can use offline mode, desktop mode, play pirated games in any mode, install any controller software you like. Finally, install another Linux distro on it, or Windows. But people buy Deck because of SteamOS mostly since it creates the intended (and expected) experience.
Wanna know why we aren’t seeing many enthusiasts creating more handheld frontends for platforms like Deck? Yeah, not at all because the platform is locked behind DRM or other bs. But because the best experience most people expect is already available and it becomes better with updates.
That doesn’t mean you can’t control how it works. Most people don’t need sources of their Linux distros to use them as they want.
You can’t easily make changes to a program without the source code or even check what it does. Most people are not programmers, so others study the code and make the necessary changes for them.
It would be cool to have the source, but you wouldn’t expect them to have an official maintained repo since they spend much more resources on actual hardware that needs this distro.
This is not an excuse. What they are doing is unethical. They put themselves in a position of power over their users. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple.
Yeah it seems to also be the only thing that is proprietary in SteamOS too.
I don’t know if that’s true. But the Linux kernel is proprietary as well (just like the one in Arch) - it contains binary blobs without the source code.
Are you clueless or what? There are too many ways to do what you want with SteamOS. You can use offline mode, desktop mode, play pirated games in any mode, install any controller software you like.
I was explaining to you how DRM works and why it’s wrong, since apparently you have no idea. I don’t know why you are listing features that any popular desktop operating system has (even Windows). SteamOS is still proprietary, which makes it unethical.
Finally, install another Linux distro on it, or Windows. But people buy Deck because of SteamOS mostly since it creates the intended (and expected) experience.
If you buy a Windows laptop, you can install any operating system on it too. That doesn’t make Windows ethical.
99% users won’t ever need that. For cases when they do, they can find guides, modify settings or install software that does what they want.
This is not an excuse. What they are doing is unethical.
People don’t need an excuse. They play their games and that’s it.
it contains binary blobs without the source code
Any distro you download can do this exact thing and you wouldn’t know for a long period, unless you spend enough time to compile the whole thing yourself, compare and research.
I was explaining to you how DRM works and why it’s wrong
I consider myself knowledgeable but you surely chose a wrong example to teach people about DRM. Try some denuvo or eac maybe.
If you buy a Windows laptop, you can install any operating system on it too. That doesn’t make Windows ethical.
Whatever that means, users don’t care about it. Compared to others, Valve provides a lot more value in most of their solutions. They are hackable just enough to satisfy most enthusiasts.
99% users won’t ever need that. For cases when they do, they can find guides, modify settings or install software that does what they want.
You could make the same excuse for Windows.
Any distro you download can do this exact thing and you wouldn’t know for a long period, unless you spend enough time to compile the whole thing yourself, compare and research.
You don’t have to compile to know this. You can find the list of fully free distros here: www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html . Debian removes those blobs too, but it’s not on that list for other reasons.
I consider myself knowledgeable but you surely chose a wrong example to teach people about DRM. Try some denuvo or eac maybe.
That’s DRM too and there are many more examples. Blu-ray also contains DRM. And so do most PC games thanks to Valve. Console games on the other hand usually don’t have DRM when you buy a physical copy.
Whatever that means, users don’t care about it. Compared to others, Valve provides a lot more value in most of their solutions. They are hackable just enough to satisfy most enthusiasts.
I know that most people don’t care about their freedom, privacy or security. Most people use Windows. But this doesn’t stop us from trying to build a better world for ourselves and to try to convince others to care.
The distros being removed from this list mostly by requests from maintainers means it’s not actively monitored or researched at all. So by not verifying it you put yourself on a mercy of other people. It will fail, if not already.
Console games on the other hand usually don’t have DRM when you buy a physical copy.
That’s because you have to use consoles to even read them. They contain hardware DRM and are far from being ethical.
But this doesn’t stop us from trying to build a better world for ourselves and to try to convince others to care.
Am I missing something or you’re thinking that starting with least offenders is a good idea?
The distros being removed from this list mostly by requests from maintainers means it’s not actively monitored or researched at all. So by not verifying it you put yourself on a mercy of other people. It will fail, if not already.
What are you talking about? It’s a list made by the Free Software Foundation. What was removed? If some information is incorrect, you should be able to prove it.
That’s because you have to use consoles to even read them. They contain hardware DRM and are far from being ethical.
I don’t know what hardware DRM means, but they use proprietary software, so you are right that they are unethical. I never said they were.
Am I missing something or you’re thinking that starting with least offenders is a good idea?
It means hardware modules like chips containing the code that you’ll have to do a lot of work to even dump, before trying to interpret and make use of it. Physical games also mostly use storage that degrades over time and I consider it another form of DRM.
I don’t know what you mean.
Why do you bash Valve but not any other company like Apple, Nvidia etc?
Those distros are just not being developed anymore, so they are no longer recommended.
If they would actively monitor all listed distros they wouldn’t need to be messaged by maintainers for a distro to get delisted. This means they don’t do monitoring. Someone just compiled a list and called it recommendations. It doesn’t seem to add anything to the whole process of making sure that public downloads contain only ethical code, if there is even such a thing.
I do. I will never buy anything from those companies.
Your comment history doesn’t show that. Only a couple of comments about Nvidia, no real thoughts about Apple. But you made at least 2 posts about Valve and oh boy some of your takes on them show you don’t really understand what you’re talking about.
This is quite old (way before OLED), so might not even be still a thing, but I remember that arch was updating too quickly and things were breaking all the time, so it took a lot of effort to get stable releases for steamOS.
In a world where Valve controls 90% of what is running on a device with immutable / containerized images, yeah I think Arch makes a lot more sense. A distro focused on rolling release is a lot less likely to hang you up when you choose to update.
Debian is great, but depending on where you are in the release cycle it can be a pain in the ass to stay up to date and, frankly, the last time I ran it, shit like apt/dpkg configuration and so many /etc files and structures just felt like mis-features or too complex for their own good.
I don’t know the anime either, but the steam logo is walking away from the debian logo and then staring into the eyes of the arch logo. OP is saying that valve made the right choice by ditching debian (I thought they were using ubuntu, but that’s just a debian derivative with a bad UI on top) for arch as the basis for steamOS. For a gaming platform, I agree. You want the latest updates and software versions for gaming purposes (and proton/wine purposes), and they can hire employees to ensure they have tackled arch’s bleeding-edge instabilities before rolling the updates out to the general population.
Nah you’re overthinking it. Grab a beginner friendly distro like Mint and just start using it. All this is fanboy talk that can be interesting but doesn’t affect 99% of users.
They’re technically right, the best kind of right. That said, I too hate Microsoft leaning into this Apple marketing bullshit and trying to monopolize the term personal computer for Windows.
Although, you could argue that some of the modern computers that only support UEFI booting and no longer have BIOS booting support aren’t actually PCs since the PC bios is a pretty big part of what traditionally defined a PC compatible system
Nothing about what he said would prevent you from using a casual user focused variant like Ubuntu. The biggest challenge you’ll potentially run into is drivers and/or having hardward that just doesn’t play nice with linux. I’d suggest just giving an install a try and see how it goes. The experience has come a long long way in the past decade.
It’s really not so bad. You would likely be fine with a beginner-friendly distro like Ubuntu or Mint. Personally I use Ubuntu because it tends to be the most supported by application developers and things generally just work, it’s kind of boring stable IMO to the point where I almost want to start distro hopping and trying out something other than Ubuntu.
Though I’d recommend trying it out in a VM first to get a feel for it, and then also trying to live boot it from a USB and see how you like it.
Valve’s use-case for choosing a gnu+linux distro is likely to be different from yours. Therefore, commentary about Valve’s needs and choices may or may not be relevant to your use-case.
If you’re new, I recommend mint. Because of ubuntu’s questionable choices at times vs debian’s steady hand, I recommend the debian edition of mint, LMDE. It’s a rolling distribution that requires fewer total reinstalls. Debian’s low-effort stability and security works for nearly all use-cases. Mint adds user-friendly settings, updates, and package management.
Cinnamon is mint’s desktop environment, what they add on top of ubuntu or debian. Like xfce, it’s lighter-weight and more responsive than plasma or gnome on lower-end or aging hardware, but it’s prettier than xfce without rice. Although if you wanna rice and make it pretty, check out a tiling window manager.
Let Valve handle the complex stuff and hire employees to stress-test the latest packages in Arch and just use what they package for you in proton. Start with a debian derivative. If you start wanting to tinker around because you’re getting comfortable, or for some reason desperately need a newer version of a package, you can try software from other package management schemes like guix or flatpak that run on top of your stable debian system.
When you’re comfortable with using the command line tools and managing the gnu operating system, you can try a more command-line centered and manually assisted distros like arch and gentoo
True, but the desktop environment that they develop in-house is what I grade them on. Not the color themes and backgrounds that they put on desktop environments produced by other projects. You can install other desktop environments on any linux distro. Ubuntu only produces Unity.
That’s true, but you could always just install Kubuntu or Xubuntu and still get a great experience, it’s literally just Ubuntu with a different DE so you would still get the full Ubuntu “experience” imo, although yeah I do see your point. Though, I do think Ubuntu has actually moved back to GNOME and killed off Unity.
Ubuntu doesn’t use unity anymore, their default UI is a GNOME shell with some extensions. It works pretty well imo. Not that different from gnome itself
Historically the in-group for several niche topics is hostile to outsiders, and the poster was very friendly and inclusive, so the sarcasm of “no don’t do that” should be a little funny.
Also, the idea of “for the crime of being X they will be sentenced to the punishment of remaining X” is also funny to me.
Add comment