Stallman trying to derail Linux adoption once again
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19065082
Stallman opens up his big mouth again calling Valve games on Linux unethical. Just when most Linux users are getting excited about the OS again, here he comes to try to derail it. We all know his viewpoints on proprietary software (including games) but he is going after the big news sites with this one.
Right now, there seems to be some hype and interest from not only Valve, but other developers like Blizzard who are strongly considering Linux. They are considering because they believe that Windows 8 will not only piss off the average consumer, but the Windows 8 App Store may close off developers from releasing independent software of their app store.
So with computing moving away from the traditional PC toward smartphones and tablets and with those still hanging on to their desktop PC now being locked into Apple and Microsoft app stores, it is a slap in the face that there are people out there like Stallman who are vindictive in trying to keep Linux a running joke.
You say "derail" as if popularity is the goal.
I'm reminded of this message, starting at about 3:50 in: http://www.sturm.com.au/resources/stallman-software-freedom-day.ogv
For some people, freedom isn't the goal. Their goal is mere "popularity" -- by whatever means necessary -- and not to teach people about the social, ethical, and political issues. I suspect that people in favor of proprietary software, such as these Valve games, fall into that category.
The philosophy of freedom being more important is a correct one. If we
want to have free software, we cannot accept non-free software.
It is the freedom to have that community (and move within it) that
matters. It is about the people and the people's ability to grow and
expand upon the skills and gifts of others that matters. It is about
that growth that matters.
See, we're all supposed to be here for one another. We're supposed to
look to God, who, as the Creator, teaches us everything about ourselves.
And then we take that knowledge and understanding and we look to our
fellow man, those He's placed here with us, and each of us, using our
unique and special gifts, examines how we can contribute to that
community He created, and to do so that others might receive and build
upon our offering, our work, to take it and improve upon it by their own
unique and special gifts, so they ultimately produce something more than
what could've done by our more limited selves in the first place, so
that even of our own work, that work which we cast out "unto the waters
from our shores," that even we might receive something far better back
from the community.
This is how we're supposed to be. All of us. And if everybody did this
... everybody would be constantly receiving something better back than
what they offered.
The unique and special talents we all possess, they are meant to be
shared, given to others that they might improve, both improve themselves
through instruction and observation, but also to improve the actual work
through unique insight and gifts.
We offer what we have, so that others can receive and contribute and add
back to it, so that when it comes back our way it's more than we sent out.
This is how we're supposed to be to each other. God gives us everything
and teaches us how to serve others, and in so doing we are wholly served
ourselves.
None of us are here by accident. We are all part of a plan. And it is
God, through His Son Jesus Christ, who shows us how to be, how to live,
how to share, how to give, and yes also how to TRULY receive ... and
that by giving.
Best regards,
Rick C. Hodgin
On 07/31/2012 09:40 PM, name at domain wrote:
> http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-19065082
>
> Stallman opens up his big mouth again calling Valve games on Linux
> unethical. Just when most Linux users are getting excited about the OS
> again, here he comes to try to derail it. We all know his viewpoints
> on proprietary software (including games) but he is going after the
> big news sites with this one.
>
> Right now, there seems to be some hype and interest from not only
> Valve, but other developers like Blizzard who are strongly considering
> Linux. They are considering because they believe that Windows 8 will
> not only piss off the average consumer, but the Windows 8 App Store
> may close off developers from releasing independent software of their
> app store.
>
> So with computing moving away from the traditional PC toward
> smartphones and tablets and with those still hanging on to their
> desktop PC now being locked into Apple and Microsoft app stores, it is
> a slap in the face that there are people out there like Stallman who
> are vindictive in trying to keep Linux a running joke.
>
*Please* don't bring religion into this. I'm not trying to be rude, but religion does not belong in a discussion relating to free and open source software.
I have to agree with the others here. If all you want is fun games, and free (as in price) software. Then that has nothing to do with Free Software or its "movement". Its gratis, and that really helps no one.
But to be fair, I first started using GNU/Linux back when when all I knew was I needed to fix my Windows computer and didn't want to spend any money. I found Ubuntu, installed it. It fixed my problem. Then fell in love with the customizablity of Gnome 2.x (ironic how that's dissappeared now) and eventually after almost 3 years, I learned of the importance of Free software and Freedom as a whole. So the free price aspect has its place, but must be used and spoken about wisely.
The issue with Stallman speaking out against Valve games and non-free games in general is that he is considered a celebrity within the computer world and can get the attention of a tech writer. He knows this and in his head he thinks that if he speaks out and whines enough, that he can tell Valve where to stick it.
Reality is that Valve is going to do what they want to do and will probably make a decent chunk of change with a huge percentage of Ubuntu users starving for games on the OS. The Humble Indie Bundles were proof of that with the Linux users paying more than Mac and Windows ones.
This is considered a test with Valve putting their feet in the water first. If they are successful, then more developers and publishers will consider porting their AAA titles to Linux as well. I don't see how fighting all of this is bad considering it brings more commerical support for the OS. Not only will it bring more software, these game companies may lend some help in fixing issues with the open source video drivers.
Nothing bad can come from this. Stallman's view is actually limiting freedom by him telling you to stay away. True freedom is knowing about free software and having the choice to stay away from certain types of software even if you may miss out in awesome entertainment.
I am a member!
>Nothing bad can come from this.
Except a huge Digital Restrictions Management platform. Steam is one of the largest forms of online DRM. While it is great that Valve is supporting GNU/Linux, it is not good enough to give them a free pass simply because it will attract new users to Free software.
>Stallman's view is actually limiting freedom by him telling you to stay away. True freedom is knowing about free software and having the choice to stay away from certain types of software even if you may miss out in awesome entertainment.
This is almost verbatim what supporters of proprietary software say about the GNU GPL and Free software. It is also in the same vein as viewing the BSD licences as 'more Free' than copyleft licenses such as the GPL. This is not good enough, as proprietary software developers can get Free code and restrict the freedom of others by issuing it under a nonfree licence.
t3g, I see you post quite a fair bit in this forum, and I am happy to see people use and discuss Free software, but I can't help but notice that a lot of the posts you make are 'just to stir the pot' as they say? Perhaps a distribution such as Debian GNU/Linux would be more in line with your values, as you can choose to install nonfree software quite easily. You can also install the nonfree kernel firmware, which is required for good 3D acceleration if using AMD/Nvidia graphics (Intel graphics are free from this problem, I believe).
Even better may be a BSD distribution such as PC-BSD (FreeBSD with a graphical front end). The 'true' Freedom you were alluding to before goes hand in hand with Free BSD distributions. Not only does the license permit your using, modifying or sharing of the source code, but also, if you wish, to use it in a proprietary program.
Linux is a kernel, not an OS.
That makes one more post where you share your "excitement" for proprietary software and DRMs... will you, one day, understand that Trisquel is about free (as in freedom) software? Oops... I forgot you re a troll.
You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the artist.
Now you take this interactive experience and instead of simply watching it, you have interaction and it has a software element to it. Now you feel that this needs to be in the same category as Python debug tools when it really isn't. Like the previously mentioned movie or music, it is meant to be consumed and not a tool to create software.
If I were to develop software with Python, do you think that I would want the source code to the language itself and compilers if needed? Absolutely. If I am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I really need to look at the source code files as a consumer? No, I would be more interested in the interactive experience.
On a final note, most of the games created under a free software compatible license are totally crap and amateur and usually based off of a 10 year old engine like Quake 3. That is because creating games needs a budget and it costs real money (like a movie) to create a top notch game. Putting aside donations and Kickstarter campaigns, you don't create a Zelda or Bioshock level game as a community project.
You know why? Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community project does not. How is he going to market the thing? Richard Stallman is a running joke with most people and his rants get ignored when he starts attacking game companies. Heck, read these Ars Technia comments to get people's views on RMS. These are real people and not FSF cultists.
I am a translator!
Software like Python debug tools and entertainment stuff like movies are in a completely different category, that's true. If a movie is distributed digitally, it shouldn't have DRM though. I understand that DRM might be a tempting technique in the modern market. The modern market is just working wrong, that's all. It doesn't mean DRM is somehow OK if in a given situation it is easier to use it, than to ignore it (as a content generator I mean).
Games are a bit more complicated though. They are artistic entertainment AND software at the same time. Ideally, the software parts would be free software, while the artistic content of the games would be non-free, with a preventive copyright.
Arguing that the lack of payment for a game development in an ethically sane environment is the reason why it is no good is like arguing NOTHING should be ever changed about the market how it is.
Sure you will not get payed as good when developing free software. This is not the fault of free software, but the fault of a market, that is unadopted to different business models in the software field.
Imagine if the GNU GPL, or something similar, would be enforced by law. Software would remain perfectly sellable. Every good has high value, if the demand is there and there is only one copy yet. You'd be selling the very first copy of your software for a LOT of money, much more than today. The second and third copy, you still might be able to sell for the same amount. At some point you'll have to drop the price gradually, until it's just the cost of packaging plus the service of burning/pressing the data on the disc.
Every other good is exactly the same, you can't make a chair once and sell it 100.000 times like you had to make it each time anew, when you don't. Every other manufacturer is perfectly OK with having to produce 1 good for selling it once. Only software manufacturers want to produce something once and sell it x thousand times. It's going against every basic law of economy (because those were written down when there was no digital data and effortless copying). A software business would work, just like every other business does, based on same old economy laws. Produce something once, get the equivalent of your invested work in money back. Then produce again.
> You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in
> entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the
> experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the
> artist.
Except that most money from these things don't go to the artists and
there is no right to restrict what information others can copy (there
are only artificial monopolies).
> Like the previously mentioned movie
> or music, it is meant to be consumed and not a tool to create
> software.
So you decide what every user of software considers to be its purpose.
I don't agree with this reasoning, the user should be able to e.g. adapt
it into a tool to use in other software.
(RMS doesn't consider artistic works not for practical use to need to
provide the same freedom to users as software, while I believe that any
cultural work could be used for an unforeseen practical purpose. Like
making typing prediction dictionaries from novels, this would be
prevented by nonfree cultural work licensing.)
> If I am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I
> really need to look at the source code files as a consumer? No, I
> would be more interested in the interactive experience.
When I'm enjoying editing programs using Emacs, I don't look at Emacs's
source code. I don't see a difference in these cases.
> Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and
> developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community
> project does not.
No one forces them to have supported partners or children and no one
forces them to work for selling software licenses. There are many
people getting money in other ways. (It's possible to get money for
selling free software or from donations of satisfied users, I don't have
data on the effectiveness of these methods.)
No one forces them to have supported partners? This sounds fishy to me.
so what, free software is more important than feeding your kids? I'm
lost here.
On 08/01/2012 12:23 PM, Michał Masłowski wrote:
>> You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in
>> entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the
>> experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the
>> artist.
> Except that most money from these things don't go to the artists and
> there is no right to restrict what information others can copy (there
> are only artificial monopolies).
>
>> Like the previously mentioned movie
>> or music, it is meant to be consumed and not a tool to create
>> software.
> So you decide what every user of software considers to be its purpose.
> I don't agree with this reasoning, the user should be able to e.g. adapt
> it into a tool to use in other software.
>
> (RMS doesn't consider artistic works not for practical use to need to
> provide the same freedom to users as software, while I believe that any
> cultural work could be used for an unforeseen practical purpose. Like
> making typing prediction dictionaries from novels, this would be
> prevented by nonfree cultural work licensing.)
>
>> If I am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I
>> really need to look at the source code files as a consumer? No, I
>> would be more interested in the interactive experience.
> When I'm enjoying editing programs using Emacs, I don't look at Emacs's
> source code. I don't see a difference in these cases.
>
>> Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and
>> developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community
>> project does not.
> No one forces them to have supported partners or children and no one
> forces them to work for selling software licenses. There are many
> people getting money in other ways. (It's possible to get money for
> selling free software or from donations of satisfied users, I don't have
> data on the effectiveness of these methods.)
> No one forces them to have supported partners? This sounds fishy to
> me. so what, free software is more important than feeding your kids?
> I'm lost here.
Having children is in some cases a choice, childless people don't have
the problem of having to feed their kids. Although this isn't the
significant issue here, my main point was that selling restricted
software isn't the only way to support oneself (somehow most arguments
against this refer to children).
If you want to play without the fear of having installed a rootkit/spyware/whatever with the game, you need the source code available. Besides, even without talking about the source code, the freedom to share the game with your friends should never be denied. Not to mention games with DRMs that do not even let the user play as she wants (e.g., forcing her to authenticate to a remote server to play solo). Video games are not only Art.
As for the cost of developing a game, have you ever wonder what is the development cost of the Linux kernel, the GCC compiler, the Apache server, the Firefox Web browser, the LibreOffice suite, etc?
We have already told you those things tens of times. You just disregard them without any single argument. You are a troll.
I completely agree here. Equating games with ordinary software programs
is like comparing apples to oranges. When I turn on my wii to play a
game, I have no thought whatsoever, whether the game I'm playing uses
free software, I know well it does not, nor do I worry about the
firmware inside of the wii. The only think I'm concerned with is jumping
over that pit before I fall in the lava. And avoiding enemies, etc etc.
On 08/01/2012 11:44 AM, name at domain wrote:
> You are teetering into the grey areas on the role of software in
> entertainment. If this was a movie or song that you consume to get the
> experience, you have no problem with protecting the rights of the artist.
>
> Now you take this interactive experience and instead of simply
> watching it, you have interaction and it has a software element to it.
> Now you feel that this needs to be in the same category as Python
> debug tools when it really isn't. Like the previously mentioned movie
> or music, it is meant to be consumed and not a tool to create software.
>
> If I were to develop software with Python, do you think that I would
> want the source code to the language itself and compilers if needed?
> Absolutely. If I am about to enjoy a 50 hour gaming experience, do I
> really need to look at the source code files as a consumer? No, I
> would be more interested in the interactive experience.
>
> On a final note, most of the software created under a free software
> compatible license is totally crap and amateur and usually based off
> of a 10 year old engine like Quake 3. That is because creating games
> needs a budget and it costs real money (like a movie) to create a top
> notch game. Putting aside donations and Kickstarter campaigns, you
> don't create a Zelda or Bioshock level game as a community project.
>
> You know why? Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids and
> developing a game at Valve or EA instead of a disjointed community
> project does not. How is he going to market the thing? Richard
> Stallman is a running joke with most people and his rants get ignored
> when he starts attacking game companies. Heck, read these Ars Technia
> comments to get people's views on RMS. These are real people and not
> FSF cultists.
El 01/08/12 23:13, kendell clark escribió:
> I completely agree here. Equating games with ordinary software
> programs is like comparing apples to oranges. When I turn on my wii to
> play a game, I have no thought whatsoever, whether the game I'm
> playing uses free software, I know well it does not, nor do I worry
> about the firmware inside of the wii. The only think I'm concerned
> with is jumping over that pit before I fall in the lava. And avoiding
> enemies, etc etc.
That is exactly what people say when they resist migrating to libre
software.
--
Saludos libres,
Quiliro Ordóñez
Presidente
Asociación de Software Libre del Ecuador - ASLE
Av de la Prensa N58-219 y Cristóbal Vaca de Castro
Quito, Ecuador
(593)2-253 5534
(593)2-340 1517
(593)8-454 8078
I know there have been some DRM issues in the past (like SecureROM) but I heard that Valve's is actually one of the less restrictive of them all. I believe that if you are online in Steam, you can play it no problem but there is also an offline option as well that doesn't require online access.
Say there was no DRM but the game required you to be logged in at all times to their server to verify the game was paid for. Would that be a comprimise for the potentially non-free software?
I am a member!
I'd say, being logged into a paid account, while you're playing, is a
reasonable compromise.
-Dave
On 08/01/2012 04:52 PM, name at domain wrote:
>
> Say there was no DRM but the game required you to be logged in at all
> times to their server to verify the game was paid for. Would that be a
> comprimise for the potentially non-free software?
It still really wouldn't be a good compromise. You have no control over the software you just purchased. Not in any sense. You don't have the code and you don't know what that code is doing on your system. Also if you have to be connected to their server to play it then they are in control. What if you want to play offline?
I think the idea that people have that their code can't be under a free license is just an old and outdated belief.
Also, I'm not trying to pick a fight here but there's nothing in Stallman's article that is trying to derail "Linux" adoption. He actually argues for and against the idea in his article. If you think that he is being manipulative because he knows some tech writer will pick it up then think again. EVERYTHING he writes is mis-interpreted or flamed by many of the tech writers out there. He's not doing himself any favors by writing things that are mostly unpopular.
I am a member!
40 years from now nobody will remember Valve.
400 years from now people will still remember RMS, GNU and the FSF.
That's what we really mean when we say popularity isn't the goal. It's not just about us. It's also not just about using a few cute applications. It's about the way we live and our relationship to each other.
Freedom is a goal in itself. If we DEMAND it now, our descendents will have it by default a century from now.
So in the future if someone reads video game history and it lists influential games, the Half-Life, Counter-Strike, and Portal games will be omitted?
I don't know whether you are 12 years old or misinformed when you make silly comments like that.
Being a troll is bad. Being insulting is worse. You have recently written that SirGrant is a pussy and you now write that kokomo_joe is childish and silly. Don't complain if you get banned.
I know it is useless but I will anyway point out that the sentence "40 years from now nobody will remember Valve" simply is an hyperbole. Anyone understands (but trolls who pretend they don't) that "nobody" is in fact "almost nobody". Sure, someone interested in video game history will remember it. The employees of Valve will remember their company too.
kokomo_joe's point, which is perfectly sensible, is that a video game company will not change history, whereas computer freedom fighters do. It is like saying that everybody knows that Abraham Lincoln abolished slavery in the USA (in 1865) and nobody can tell that Robert Angel designed the Pictionary guessing game (in 1985). Please understand that the previous sentence is, again, an hyperbole.
So you are getting on my case saying I am name calling by calling someone childish and how I am such a horrible person for it yet you turn around and call me a troll? Your way of thinking is so one sided if you think calling someone a troll is not name calling.
Plus, simply calling someone a troll is a cop-out when the name caller has nothing to add and is threatened and scared by the person they label as a troll.
I know it is useless but I will anyway point out that...
I was right since you answered that I had "nothing to add".
I perfectly know that "calling someone a troll" is "name calling" (although it looks far weaker than "pussy" to me). You can check that I exchanged tens, maybe hundreds, of messages with you before actually using the term "troll". After that I had to come to the same conclusion as most (all?) other users of this freedom-oriented forum: you are the definition of a troll and 90% of your posts blatantly prove it.
In Internet slang, a troll is someone who posts inflammatory, extraneous, or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum, chat room, or blog, with the primary intent of provoking readers into an emotional response or of otherwise disrupting normal on-topic discussion.
And, again, being a troll is bad but being insulting (with no valid ground) is worse.
I know what you are trying to do. You are egging me on trying to get me to verbally come back at you with a strong response so you can try to get me banned. I realize it is me vs the world with the members around here and you would think any disagreement is a victory for you. Why would I give you that passive aggressive ego boost? LOL.
Next time, on let's all argue, we continue the free games argument. It
gets very heated, so don't miss it. Please tune in tomorrow at one pm.
On 08/03/2012 12:32 PM, name at domain wrote:
> I know what you are trying to do. You are egging me on trying to get
> me to verbally come back at you with a strong response so you can try
> to get me banned. I realize it is me vs the world with the members
> around here and you would think any disagreement is a victory for you.
> Why would I give you that passive aggressive ego boost? LOL.
I am a member!
@t3g
>If I were to develop software with Python, do you think that I would want the source code to the language itself and compilers if needed? Absolutely.
Do you program? Why would you 'absolutely' want the languages' source code?
>On a final note, most of the games created under a free software compatible license are totally crap and amateur and usually based off of a 10 year old engine like Quake 3.
The amount on nonsense in this paragraph is really outstanding.
Your assumption that game engine = visual quality is amusing. Game engines do not exclusively cover textures or bitmaps or sprites etc. Core components like AI, networking, scripting, physics etc are the framework of a game engine. A rendering engine is just another component of a fully functional game engine.
Consequently, both Free and nonfree games usually contain code from older engines to supplement or provide a basis for future modification and optimization. Modern proprietary games such as TF2 and Half-Life 2 still contain code that was directly stripped from Quake and Quake 2. Likewise , free games such as Warsow implement new textures, lighting, bloom etc while still essentially using the Quake 2 engine.
Your assertion that most games created under a Free license are 'crap' is subjective at best and misleading at worst. I'd recommend doing some brief research before making such assumptions. For example, the game Xonotic has really great visual fidelity. Check it out: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=leMVrAM8F3Y
Also, the game I mentioned before, Warsow, has a great feel to it. Check it out. There is some nice gameplay: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kUPlwxQ0cC4
And of course OpenArena deserves a mention. Version 0.8.8 when maxed out looks quite good: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qwPdOokI4zQ
Anyway, to judge a game by its visual quality is laughable. I don't see anyone laughing at Deus-Ex, which even for its time had mediocre visuals. Yet it stands the test of time because of its story, its sounds, its atmosphere and gameplay.
>...that is because creating games needs a budget and it costs real money (like a movie) to create a top notch game. Putting aside donations and Kickstarter campaigns, you don't create a Zelda or Bioshock level game as a community project.
That is because creating an operating system needs a budget and it costs real money (like a movie) to create a top notch OS. Putting aside donations and Kickstarter campaigns, you don't create a Windows or a Mac OS X level OS as a community project.
See how dreadful your argument is? People like you said the same thing about a Free operating system. But we did it. We have a completely free computer environment that both respects and defends our freedom. If we can do it with an entire operating system, we can do it with games, or at the very least, gaming platforms and/or distributors.
>You know why? Because a developer has to feed his wife and kids
Oh dear, the 'feeding the family' strawman. You have really outdone yourself this time, comrade.
> Richard Stallman is a running joke with most people and his rants get ignored when he starts blah blah blah
Why are you here if you don't even agree with the man who gave you an entirely Free operating system with freedom respecting programs and ideals?
What's the deal, man?
You also seem to forget that many games use licensed game engines like the Unreal Engine and even if a company wanted to release the source code for their game, they couldn't becuase of the terms of that license. The creators of the Unreal Engine for example rely on licensing the engine to 3rd parties so they can employ more people to maintain and advance their technology. Have you seen the credits for a modern video game? They are longer than most movies!
The problem is that these game companies don't want to worry about the engine and are more concerned in the artwork and storyline instead of creating the game engine themselves. The game engine takes time and money and they really don't want to create a new engine for every game. With potentially thousands or even millions of dollars put away into an engine, do you think they would release the source code for their hard work? Especially if they are a small development house? Keep dreamin.
These conversations keep going around in circles with the responses saying that everything should be free and given away. Forget the millions of dollars and man hours put into a technology. Just give it away for free so there can be copycat and watered down clones.
I love programs like LibreOffice to death, but it still doesn't look as good as Microsoft Office because money motivates people. This is why it is a little too idealistic to think that community games can even come close to the commercial ones. Even if there is a community, many of these open source projects have only a few people working on them full time. For example, the Gnome project only has like 1 guy working on GTK3!
Haven't we explained to you that most Free software development is paid and that Free software has nothing to do with price? Oh, wait... We did it millions of times already (hint: this is another hyperbole).
Something else: could you please stop writing bullshit? There are twelve "core maintainers of GTK+" listed on the GTK+ website and all of them are paid for it... but, sure, this is an improbable place to find such a piece of information (hint: this is irony). Of course, there are many more developers outside this core. For instance, last month, there were 30 different developers writing on the mailing list for the core GTK+ development (another improbable place to check).
One other thing... the Left 4 Dead 2 game runs faster on Linux due to OpenGL: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
Oh and I wanted to point out again that I am right in regard to commercial gaming support leads to better drivers for everyone. Here is a blurb:
Working with hardware vendors
We’ve been working with NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel to improve graphic driver performance on Linux. They have all been great to work with and have been very committed to having engineers on-site working with our engineers, carefully analyzing the data we see. We have had very rapid turnaround on any bugs we find and it has been invaluable to have people who understand the game, the renderer, the driver, and the hardware working alongside us when attacking these performance issues.
This is a great example of the benefits that are the result of close coordination between software and hardware developers and should provide value to the Linux community at large.
Oh and I wanted to point out again that I am right in regard to commercial gaming support leads to better drivers for everyone. Here is a blurb:Well, you can read it that way... or you can read this post from the guys that work on the intel free driver, that got invited to work with the people at Valve:http://www.paranormal-entertainment.com/idr/blog/posts/2012-07-19T18%3A54%3A37Z-The_zombies_cometh/Excerpt:These have been a lot easier to diagnose on L4D2 because we have access to their source code. Being able to take a profile that shows times in the driver and in the application makes a world of difference. Being able to tweak little things in the app (what happens if I do this...) is also helpful for diagnosing performance problems. Eric has already started landing patches for L4D2 performance, and there will be many more over the coming weeks.The funny thing is Valve guys say the same thing about drivers. There were a couple times where we felt like they were trying to convince us that open source drivers are a good idea. We had to remind them that they were preaching to the choir. :) Their problem with closed drivers (on all platforms) is that it's such a blackbox that they have to play guess-and-check games. There's no way for them to know how changing a particular setting will affect the performance. If performance gets worse, they have no way to know why. If they can see where time is going in the driver, they can make much more educated guesses.So... having access to the source code from a game makes easier the work of free drivers' developers and viceversa... yeah, exactly the same thing you said!
I don't get it. All that says, is that they're workin on it. It doesn't
say who, what they're working on, when it's going to be released, or
anything other than that they're working on it. This kind of sounds like
the kind of info I used to get when using windows, just enough to make
you think stuff is actually getting done, but no real info. On
08/02/2012 01:47 PM, name at domain wrote:
> One other thing... the Left 4 Dead 2 game runs faster on Linux due to
> OpenGL: http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/faster-zombies/
>
> Oh and I wanted to point out again that I am right in regard to
> commercial gaming support leads to better drivers for everyone. Here
> is a blurb:
>
> Working with hardware vendors
>
> We’ve been working with NVIDIA, AMD, and Intel to improve graphic
> driver performance on Linux. They have all been great to work with and
> have been very committed to having engineers on-site working with our
> engineers, carefully analyzing the data we see. We have had very rapid
> turnaround on any bugs we find and it has been invaluable to have
> people who understand the game, the renderer, the driver, and the
> hardware working alongside us when attacking these performance issues.
>
> This is a great example of the benefits that are the result of close
> coordination between software and hardware developers and should
> provide value to the Linux community at large.I d
In this case Stallman is absolutely right. I'd like to see games on the GNU/Linux platform but not at any price. I don't want to give up my freedom for a computer game.
Saying Stallman is trying to derail GNU/Linux adoption doesn't make sense to me. Without him GNU/Linux wouldn't exist as we know it.
t3g is trying to derail the free software movement once again
- Anmelden oder Registrieren um Kommentare zu schreiben