Could a Lutris fork be used to create a libre replacement for SteamOS?
Lutris provides a libre replacement for the Steam client and server.
The Lutris client is GPLv3:
https://github.com/lutris/lutris/blob/master/COPYING
The Lutris website is AGPLv3:
https://github.com/lutris/website/blob/master/LICENSE
Since SteamOS is basically a Debian system with the Steam client built-in, I can imagine building Lutris into an existing free distro like Trisquel to create a libre gaming distro as a replacement for SteamOS. The only problem with Lutris is that it facilitates the installation of games with proprietary engines. Obviously if a community decided to work an a libre gaming distro, they would need to set up their own game repository with only libre games included, and modify the Lutris code to point to this repo, and replace any references to support for proprietary games with references to the nearest equivalent games with free code. Since this would be a major change, it would make sense to maintain a fork of Lutris under its own branding.
Some will no doubt say, why not just run games on Trisquel? I've been trying to do this, but frankly it's a pretty frustrating exercise. The Trisquel repos seldom have the latest stable versions of games (or anything really), and a lot of libre games cannot be found there at all, especially the more high-end games (3D first-person shooters etc).
Most frustrating, although the Add/Remove Applications allows users to look through a list of the games that are in the Trisquel repos, this is an incredibly crude user experience compared to a modern game client like Steam. There is no way to sort games, for example by genre, or system requirements, screenshots are not displayed automatically (a no-brainer when it comes to games) and are sometimes missing or show only start screens. There are resources like LibreGameWiki and the Free Software Directory that could be used to populate the user interface with detailed information about available games.
A lot of Windows users I know cling to Windows only because they are keen on games. A gamer-orientated GNU/Linux distro like SteamOS makes it much more likely they will make the shift. If we want those users to take the next step to a fully libre distro, the libre gaming community needs to create a distro with a user experience akin to what SteamOS offers, and Lutris has already created a biig chunk of the missing pieces.
Well, if you're going to make a libre gaming distro, you might as well just put all the games in the repository. The only reason anyone needs a special client like Lutris (other than the repository being out-of-date, which a new distro could solve) is because they're playing games that need to be run in Wine, in an emulator, through Steam, etc, or because they cannot be redistributed, and neither of those apply to libre games.
There are libre games which (for some weird reason) are not available for GNU/Linux, so there is a place for WINE and emulators for Android etc in a libre gaming distro, as long as the repo doesn't contain proprietary games. Besides, your comment doesn't address the user experience issues I raised. What you are saying is equivalent to saying, why do we need graphical media library apps? We can just browse our music and videos using a file manager and play them in VLC. This is true, but it's not as convenient or pleasant as using an app like RhythmBox or Banshee or XBMC. I think the same is true of a game library app.
If a gamer buys a Steam Machine and wants to use it in full freedom, what advice can we currently give them? Uninstall Steam and any other proprietary bits in SteamOS, leaving them with a weirdo Debian system. Or format and install an existing libre distro like Trisquel. This doesn't provide the console-like user experience of SteamOS and I think we can do better.
Lutris is architected for a consistent user experience across a wide range of GNU/Linux platforms, and a hypothetical fully libre fork would have the same benefits. If a gamer moves from Windows to our hypothetical libre gaming distro, then wants to try other libre distros (eg Trisquel), they can do so while still having convenient access to a familiar gaming experience by installing the Lutris fork from that distro's repos. Maybe there could even be an export/ import tool that automatically downloads and installs the games in the library they built up on their existing install?
> here is a place for WINE and emulators for Android etc in a libre gaming distro
It's perfectly possible to package a program to use Wine, or even an emulator if the emulator supports launching into a game directly. Some games we already have that are packaged like that are Flight of the Amazon Queen and Beneath a Steel Sky.
> Besides, your comment doesn't address the user experience issues I raised. What you are saying is equivalent to saying, why do we need graphical media library apps? We can just browse our music and videos using a file manager and play them in VLC.
I'd be 100% on-board with a front-end that's more convenient to use with a controller, or more gaming oriented. Heck, I'd want to use that myself! :) I'm just saying that this could just as well be a front-end for Debian packages (or whatever kind of packages the distro uses). There's no need for a complicated system that's focused on making it possible to get games from several different sources, as far as I can tell.
Besides, installing games isn't the only thing you'd want to do with that interface, so what you'd really want to do is have a full desktop environment that's gaming-oriented in this way, or maybe a set of GNOME Shell extensions to achieve the task.
> Lutris is architected for a consistent user experience across a wide range of GNU/Linux platforms, and a hypothetical fully libre fork would have the same benefits. If a gamer moves from Windows to our hypothetical libre gaming distro, then wants to try other libre distros (eg Trisquel), they can do so while still having convenient access to a familiar gaming experience by installing the Lutris fork from that distro's repos.
I'm pretty sure Lutris is only designed for GNU/Linux. It's not supposed to be familiar necessarily, just convenient. So really, if you're talking about a libre gaming distro, having the same interface as Lutris would be a very minor advantage.
Don't get me wrong, I'm not against the idea of a Lutris fork, I just think that effort making a libre gaming distro would not particularly benefit from it.
Note that, for free/libre software to be considered as such, society
must be able to build and run it using **at least** solely free/libre
software.
Also, for a game (or software, in general) to be allowed for inclusion
on a free/libre system distribution, their non-functional data (in
short: art, but some art can also be functional) must **at least** give
society the freedom to share **and** sell copies of the original
non-functional data (freedom 2 entirely). Note that, if they don't want
their project to be included in free/libre system distributions, then
making sure that these non-functional data is **at least** shareable
(half of freedom 2). This paragraph is an important distinction between
the free/libre software philosphy and definition in general (which is
more "permissive" in this regard) and the GNU Free Distribution
Guidelines (GNU FSDG) (which is more strictier).
If those "libre" games you said aren't available in free/libre system
distributions, it can be either due to the above; due to lack of time
for packaging; or due to the project goals.
> why do we need graphical media library apps? We can just browse our music and videos using a file manager and play them in VLC. This is true, but it's not as convenient or pleasant as using an app like RhythmBox or Banshee or XBMC.
VLC can do playlists and has its own media browser. And I'm a newbie but since it's the most widely used libre app of its genre I'd bet it can do thumbnails, album views, etc.
VLC is not really made to organize a digital audio collection.
"VLC is not really made to..."
When you can use a program to do things that it was not made to do then you are truly realizing freedom 0. :>
IrishUSA, I suggest before making a public comment like this, you boot up VLC, and test your theory against reality. In this case you would have found that VLC definitely does *not* "do thumbnails, album views, etc.". If you'd put $1 on that bet, you would now be a $1 poorer ;)
I think the backend should just be your package manager. I think there are not satisfactory apps that work with a controller:
- Desktop environment/shell
- Web browsing
- Voice chat (maybe?)
- Maybe social media integration? (e.g. "now playing 0 A.D. come join me")
I believe Kodi is meant to work well with a gamepad, so multimedia playback is covered.
Just a few ideas I am throwing out here.
I'm quite serious about trying to get this up and running over the course of next year. Anyone keen to get onboard? For now I'm going to go with the working title GOLD GNU/Linux:
Gaming
On
Libre
Distribution
>> I think the backend should just be your package manager. <<
Sure, the command line package manager is always the back-end for downloading and installing application software. At that level, I presume Lutris is just running APT commands, the same way Add/Remove Applications does, right?
>> I think there are not satisfactory apps that work with a controller <<
What about gaming control software developed for libre game consoles like the Ouya and Pandora? Could that be adapted for more general use with joysticks and other controllers?
More detailed questions; what standards are there covering what physical ports can be used and what control protocols regulate signals for the gaming controller to the OS? How many of these are implemented in mature or even usable libre libraries?
There would also needs to be a concerted effort to develop fully-functional libre drivers for all the hardware in Steam Machines, especially the graphics chipsets.
>> Desktop environment/shell <<
My understanding of SteamOS is that it aims to work like a console, providing a large, simple GUI that can be seen and used easily from the couch, with a wireless controller (mouse and keyboard and ideally a game controllers too). Steam serves as this GUI. There is a standard Debian desktop as a fallback, in the same way that CTRL-ALT-F1 terminals exist as a fallback on most GNU/Linux desktop environments.
GOLD could have a libre fork of something like Lutris or PlayOnLinux as the games library. Or, as I think you're implying, an existing media library app like Kodi could be extended or forked to do the same job. There could be a couple of default desktop options, as with Trisquel, something like KDE or GNOME for computers less than 5 years old, and maybe a tidied up version of something like Enlightenment 17/ Moksha for older computers. OpenBox could also be there as an option for more advanced users, comfortable with remembering commands and package names.
>> - Web browsing <<
Sure. The gaming library could have an interface for setting up network games too, and maybe a default list of libre gaming servers that gets regularly updates pushed through packages management.
>>- Voice chat (maybe?) <<
Sure. This is an important part of the social experience of gaming, and will become more important as immersive VR takes off. There are existing packages like Mumble clients that could be integrated.
>>- Maybe social media integration? (e.g. "now playing 0 A.D. come join me") <<
Sure. Support for sending notifications through existing apps, maybe with a plug-in infrastructure that can support GNU Social, Diapora, Friendica, Hubzilla, Pump.io, Tent, chat systems like IRC, XMPP, RocketChat or MatterMost, whatever there is demand from users for. This is a nice-to-have, but it is a part of the PlayStation/ XBox experience that Steam tries to compete with, and it would be great for a libre distro for Steam Machines to have it.
>> I believe Kodi is meant to work well with a gamepad, so multimedia playback is covered. <<
As mentioned above, Kodi might be a better choice for default interface that an existing game-specific app like Lutris or PlayOnLinux. I need to download and road test some different apps and see how they compare. Details information about pros and cons of each choice welcome.
>> Just a few ideas I am throwing out here. <<
Thanks, that's helpful.
> Sure, the command line package manager is always the back-end for downloading and installing application software. At that level, I presume Lutris is just running APT commands, the same way Add/Remove Applications does, right?
I suppose so, is Lutris specifically designed to work well with gamepads?
Regarding the "desktop environment" that is really not what I mean. I am not sure how to fully explain what I am referring to here, are you familiar with the "Steam Overlay"? In the middle of a game, you can instantly access certain Steam functionality while pausing the game. The whole environment is kind of tied together. Your example of Kodi is a good one, though I am not sure how you could tie it together on the technical side.
> What about gaming control software developed for libre game consoles like the Ouya and Pandora? Could that be adapted for more general use with joysticks and other controllers?
I was not talking about these lower-level hardware issues -- I was talking about interfaces appropriate for a television screen and gamepad experience. My experience is that gamepads work pretty well, and it's not hard to program for them. Maybe an improved interface for mapping the gamepad to keys would be welcome (such as what Antimicro does).
BTW let me just say I like the idea. It's something I have considered but wasn't sure how much the free software community would benefit from it.
On 11/19/2016 11:55 AM, name at domain wrote:
> I'm quite serious about trying to get this up and running over the
> course of next year. Anyone keen to get onboard? For now I'm going to go
> with the working title GOLD GNU/Linux:
>
> Gaming
> On
> Libre
> Distribution
>
>>> I think the backend should just be your package manager. > I think
> there are not satisfactory apps that work with a controller > Desktop
> environment/shell
You may want to have a look at:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Playground/Games
Regards,
Florian
> What about gaming control software developed for libre game consoles like the Ouya and Pandora?
I don't know about Ouya, though I'm pretty sure that software is all proprietary, but the Pandora doesn't offer anything special on that front. The "MiniMenu" interface isn't all that useful, so the normally used desktop environment is just Xfce. "MiniMenu" doesn't use an actual gamepad, anyway (the Pandora's game controls are all mapped to keys, with the exception of the analog nubs which are mapped to mouse controls).
> More detailed questions; what standards are there covering what physical ports can be used and what control protocols regulate signals for the gaming controller to the OS? How many of these are implemented in mature or even usable libre libraries?
I'm not entirely sure what you're asking here, but this sounds to me like something the Linux Joystick Driver takes care of. The joystick driver figures out how to communicate with the gamepad and abstracts it into a number of axes, hats, and buttons. I know that the Linux Joystick Driver works with USB-HID (the only actual standard that exists for gamepads) and XInput (the non-standard protocol Xbox 360 controllers use). It does not work with DirectInput, the obsolete protocol of DirectX, but there aren't a whole lot of controllers that use that.
The actual thing you have to worry about isn't the low-level technical details of how the controllers work, but rather the layout of controls, which there isn't any particular standard for. In some cases you just have to recognize specific controllers because their layouts are so bizarre (*cough* Dualshock 3 *cough*).
> There would also needs to be a concerted effort to develop fully-functional libre drivers for all the hardware in Steam Machines, especially the graphics chipsets.
That might not always be possible. Recent Nvidia cards do signature checking, so it's not possible to replace the proprietary firmware on them. In cases where a Steam machine uses such a GPU, the most we can do with it (without replacing the GPU) is get it running without hardware graphics acceleration.
> immersive VR takes off
I seriously doubt there will ever be a libre VR game worth mentioning. Never mind whether or not there's a libre library for VR, it's just going to be too expensive to be a realistic project for any libre game developer, especially if (as I suspect) VR is just a passing fad.
So, first thing, I never really got into PC games. For me, PCs have always been a work tool, and a way to access music and video. I've mostly done gaming on consoles, and only recently started to realise that these too are computers, and that the software freedom of their users needs defending just like that of traditional PC users. Also, I've come into the software freedom movement as a user and advocate for other users. I'm not a developer (yet anyway) and my technical knowledge is limited.
So, if I'm coming across like a total noob with some of my comments here, well, that's because I am a total noob when it comes to these issues ;) Clearly, the other folks commenting on this thread have done a lot more thinking and investigating about these issues than I have, and know a lot more about the technicalities involves. Thanks for doing your best to answer my wooley questions, and for all the information you've shared here.
Florian wrote:
>> You may want to have a look at:
https://wiki.gnome.org/Design/Playground/Games <<
Thanks for this. My first impression is that it's still focused on a PC gaming experience (sitting in front of a computer gaming with a keyboard and/or mouse), rather than the Steamesque console experience (sitting on a couch with a screen on the other side of the room and gaming with wireless controllers). That said, it looks like a good project, and the work they are doing could well be useful in the development of GOLD.
OnPon wrote:
>> Recent Nvidia cards do signature checking, so it's not possible to replace the proprietary firmware on them. <<
This seems like a problem that can only be solved by getting hardware manufacturers to use free hardware designs instead of cloning or licensing proprietary hardware designs. At what point do we just start treating this kind of built-in, unremovable stuff as part of the hardware, rather than part of the software, until the goal of making libre hardware mainstream is realised? Getting gamers to migrate from Windows to GNU/Linux will be much harder if the experience is objectively lower quality because it can't use the hardware properly.
>> I seriously doubt there will ever be a libre VR game worth mentioning. Never mind whether or not there's a libre library for VR, it's just going to be too expensive to be a realistic project for any libre game developer <<
Well it would certainly be expensive to develop libre VR games if you had to build every bit of the stack from scratch. But there are already open source projects underway to build large chunks of the VR stack (http://www.osvr.org/), so I don't see why it's so unrealistic to think that similar collaborative projects will be set up to develop libre game libraries/ engines for VR.
>> VR is just a passing fad. <<
Yeah, like that "personal computer" thing and that "internet" thing were just passing fads. I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Thanks for that ;) Wait, are you actually serious?
The idea that there would one day be libre libraries/ engines for 3D games (first-person shooters, MMORPGs etc) probably seemed absurdly ambitious when KDE and GNOME first came out. Even the idea that people could use GNU/Linux without learning a UNIX command line first probably seemed absurdly ambitious before KDE and GNOME were developed. Edward Snowden said, in his Libreplanet talk, that the software freedom movement needs to get ahead of the curve and developing new libre applications for VR before proprietary software is developed to do the same thing (https://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/libreplanet-2016-the-last-lighthouse/ towards the end). I agree, and gaming seems like an obvious target. Ambitious? Yes. Impossible. Hell no.
> Yeah, like that "personal computer" thing and that "internet" thing were just passing fads. I actually laughed out loud when I read this. Thanks for that ;) Wait, are you actually serious?
More like how light guns were a passing fad, or like how motion control was a passing fad. These are things that hinge on novelty; they are not generally more useful for game design than more traditional alternatives, yet they are either more expensive or more difficult to develop for, so they die out as soon as the novelty wears off. I think this is likely to happen with VR long before any competent libre VR game gets made.
>> These are things that hinge on novelty; they are not generally more useful for game design than more traditional alternatives <<
Have you actually used a VR headset? You turn your head to the left and see whatever is to your left in the VR environment without having to do it with your hands. They allow for an immersive gaming experience that was only recently the stuff of sci fi (think HoloDeck). Of course they are more useful for game design! I honestly don't understand why you would say that they are not.
It's worth noting too that light guns and motion control aren't really good examples of the point you are trying to make. Current consoles support equivalents of both and they are used to great effect in recent games like the Infamous series and the latest installments in the Tomb Raider series. I guess time will tell whether VR is more analagous to desktop GUIs or to novelty peripherals.
> You turn your head to the left and see whatever is to your left in the VR environment without having to do it with your hands.
Yes, and this is not generally useful for game design. It's a novelty, and it's much more complex than the more traditional alternatives, plus it requires specialized equipment that not everyone has. Exactly the same as the Wii, in other words.
> immersive gaming experience that was only recently the stuff of sci fi (think HoloDeck). Of course they are more useful for game design! I honestly don't understand why you would say that they are not.
Another thing that was the stuff of science fiction was video phone calls. We don't do those very much even though we easily could, because they aren't generally more useful than simple audio calls. Just because something is cool doesn't mean it's going to really be useful enough for people to keep doing it when it becomes possible.
Immersion is really not that useful for games as a general rule, beyond a certain point. Games are by their very nature escapist, and the more you immerse the player into the game, the more you make their human limitations factor into the game experience. Additionally, VR can only be used for first-person games, by its very nature, or it's not VR anymore. So there aren't anywhere near as many different kinds of VR games you can develop as non-VR games.
> light guns and motion control aren't really good examples of the point you are trying to make. Current consoles support equivalents of both
Sure, they still exist, but today they're just gimmicks that no one really cares about. The most common controls today (excluding touchscreen-based games, which are a different market) are still keyboard and mouse, and a dual-analog gamepad. The height of the popularity of light guns ended decades ago, and the height of the popularity of motion controls ended years ago. Consoles still push them to some extent because they're obsolete and have been for over a decade; they need gimmicks to stay relevant.
Right now, we're at the height of the popularity of VR. It, too, will end. Heck, I wouldn't put it past VR to end with a big market crash.
Not only do I disagree with your interpretations, we don't even seem to be looking at the same reality. I'm not sure where in the world you live, and I can only based my comments on what I observe going on here in Aotearoa, which tends to be a weird mix of the stubbornly backwards and the techno-utopian.
>> plus it requires specialized equipment that not everyone has. <<
Thus my comparisons with personal computers and the internet. I remember being told in the 90s that because those were "specialized equipment that not everyone has", I was wasting my time with teaching activists to use websites and email lists. PCs and the internet turned out to be useful for a huge variety of different things; office work, comms, education, entertainment, and so on, which allowed them to be sold in large enough numbers to get cheap, and for there to be an even cheaper second-hand market, which meant everyone ended up having one (or 3). I believe that the same is also true of VR, and you are wrong now for the same reason they were wrong then.
>> Exactly the same as the Wii, in other words. <<
Again, this doesn't seem to be a strong example from where I'm looking. The Wii has been tremendously successful here, and I'd love to see a libre gaming system that allowed for the same kind of physical gameplay. Imagine sports games, and music games in the style of things like Dance Dance Revolution, SingStar, GuitarHero, implemented in VR!
>> Another thing that was the stuff of science fiction was video phone calls. We don't do those very much... <<
Again, this seems like a poor example for the point you're trying to make. Maybe you don't use video calls much, and I don't either, but *only* because the free code software for supporting them is frustratingly alpha compared to its proprietary counterparts. Everyone else I know uses them *lots*. Skype is so popular here it's practically an everday appliance in itself. There's a reason MS paid so much money for it, and a reason Google (Hangouts), FB, and Apple (FaceTime) have all cloned it's functionality. I see no reason to think VR conferencing will be any different, and I agree with Snowden that the software freedom movement needs to try to lead from the front on it rather than playing catchup after the first proprietary implementation becomes a defacto standard.
>> they aren't generally more useful than simple audio calls <<
That depends very much on the use case. For group calls, it's very useful to be able to see the non-verbal cues that someone is about to speak. This allows us to naturally avoid those common and awkward monents on voice conferences where multiple people start to speak at once, then all try to let each other go first, without having to use extra tools to keep track of a speaking order. Video calling is also more useful than audio-only calls for keeping in touch with family and friends who live in different cities or countries, because it offers richer interaction. This is especially important for children, who tend to find it much easier to engage with someone they can see and recognise, than with a disembodied voice.
>> Additionally, VR can only be used for first-person games, by its very nature, or it's not VR anymore. <<
The first time I used VR it was set up with a 3D painting/ light sculpting app. The toolbars were virtual controls wrapped around the handheld controllers. It was amazing. Just as one example of non-FP games, a group of people using VR could play any tabletop game together over the net, from traditional games like Chess and Go to rules-based wargaming with virtual miniatures.
Even if you were right that FP games were the only thing VR could be used for, this is a meta-category that covers many game genres, including many of the most popular ones (shooters, adventure games, role-playing, and so on). Just from my conversations with the few gamers I personally know, I can see massive potential demand for immersive versions of these kinds of games.
>> Right now, we're at the height of the popularity of VR. It, too, will end. Heck, I wouldn't put it past VR to end with a big market crash. <<
Sure, just like the internet and the web ended with the bursting of the DotCom bubble.
Much as I enjoy arguing the toss with you, and you've certainly brought up some points worth considering, I guess we're just going to have to agree to disagree on this for now and see what happens. If possible, I'd like to shelve this debate for now (you are entitled to a right of reply of course), and focus further contributions to this thread on the nuts and bolts of what needs to be done to develop GOLD.
One more point; flatscreens don't offer anything significantly more useful than CRTs for desktops and TVs, but who still uses a CRT? Similarly, touchscreens are gradually replacing non-touch flatscreens on laptops, and will eventually do the same on desktops (assuming they continue to exist at all). Another example, even though there are still plenty of uses for cheap 1-2GB USB drives, the smallest size you can buy continues to go up.
The reason is economies of scale; once enough units of the newer technology are being produced, the cost of producing them is lowered to the point where it's the same or even cheaper than producing the old technology, at which point there's no reason to keep producing the older technology if the newer one does the same things and more.
Initially, only early adopters will buy VR headsets. As a wider range of applications are developed for them, making them more and more general purpose, more hardware startups will try to bootstrap themselves using this new market, and the technology will become smaller and cheaper. Eventually, it will seem as silly to buy a flatscreen (touch or otherwise) as it is now to buy a CRT.
Of course, all of this assumes of course that we solve the energy crisis precipitated by peak oil, mitigate climate change sufficiently to prevent human extinction (or at least the end of technological civilization), and learn to recycle electronics efficiently enough to make them sustainable at all. But if we don't do these things, software freedom will become irrelevant anyway, because there will be no computers to run software.
> flatscreens don't offer anything significantly more useful than CRTs for desktops and TVs
This is completely untrue. There are two major reasons LCD screens became the norm rather than CRTs: they're much more power-efficient, and they're much more lightweight. In fact, CRT screens are better than LCD screens in terms of how the picture looks (LCDs look worse if you look at them from the wrong angle), but we collectively decided that the added weight and power usage wasn't worth that benefit, and that the cost of plasma displays wasn't worth that benefit either.
> touchscreens are gradually replacing non-touch flatscreens on laptops, and will eventually do the same on desktops (assuming they continue to exist at all).
Touchscreens are useful because they're cheap and versatile. That makes them a perfect choice on a small phone if you want to cut down the cost. They are also marginally useful on laptops because the traditional alternative (the touchpad) is unweildly, and you don't always have space for a real mouse. If they ever start getting made for desktop computers, I would expect this to be as an afterthought. I doubt this or extinction is where desktop computers are going; it seems to me more likely that they will become media centers attached to a TV and mostly controlled by a remote, game controller, or wireless keyboard.
> Another example, even though there are still plenty of uses for cheap 1-2GB USB drives, the smallest size you can buy continues to go up.
This is a quantitative improvement. Higher amounts of RAM are not novel, they're just better.
> Eventually, it will seem as silly to buy a flatscreen (touch or otherwise) as it is now to buy a CRT.
This is nonsense. There are plenty of applications where you would want more than one person looking at a screen, or where you would want to be able to see things other than the screen. There are very few applications (i.e. VR games) where you would want the opposite.
"we collectively decided that the added weight and power usage wasn't worth that benefit"
Really? I must have missed the memo about that meeting ;) What you mean, if course, is that once a certain critical mass of people decided to switch to flatscreens, the market for CRTs wasn't profitable enough to justify continuing to produce them, even if a huge numbers of people might still have preferred them. Which was exactly my point.
"If they ever start getting made for desktop computers, I would expect this to be as an afterthought."
As above, once enough of the capital invested in screen production is redirected into touchscreens, it will become cheaper per unit to design and produce them than to continue designing and producing non-touch flatscreens, just as it did with CRTs. It's about economies of scale. So yes, it will be "an afterthought" to start selling touchscreens with desktops, again this was my point.
"Higher amounts of RAM are not novel, they're just better."
Bigger is not necessarily better. Having had a couple of USB hard drives crap out or get stolen, I now keep my back-ups on a huge collection of 15GB USB sticks. It costs me more per GB, but I don't have to keep all my eggs in one basket. If one of the sticks craps out or goes missing, I lose up to 15GB of files, but I don't lose 1-2TB. If I could buy three 5GB USB sticks for about the same price as one 15GB USB stick I would, because these are more useful for making LiveUSBs, posting things to people who don't have internet, and other uses. But I can't find USBs smaller than 15GB in the shops these days, and if I do, they tend to cost more per GB, not less.
"There are plenty of applications where you would want more than one person looking at a screen..."
This would be possible with screen-sharing across two VR sets, or by having both VR sets access the same thing across a network.
"...or where you would want to be able to see things other than the screen."
This shows me that you have dismissed VR without even using it, because you already *can* see things other than the screen. Without this, people wearing VR headsets would walk into walls or each other. When I used the Vive, people came up as a white outline, as did walls and other barriers. With further development, external cameras could provide live video streams of what's in front of you, beside you, behind you, or above you. A user could choose which ones they need at any given time, where in their field of view they want them, and how big.
> This shows me that you have dismissed VR without even using it
Of course I haven't used it. Even leaving aside the fact that they all run on proprietary software, I can't afford to spend hundreds of dollars on a luxury good that I will barely use (I spend very little of my time playing games, so even if I started exclusively playing VR games -- highly unlikely -- I would still barely be using it).
> Bigger is not necessarily better.
But it is. At least, all other factors being equal. So if you can spend the same amount of money on two RAM chips that are equally fast and reliable, but one has more RAM, you're of course going to choose the one with more RAM.
What you proceed to talk about is an advantage to splitting up all your data into several smaller flash drives. But that's an argument for why 100 10GB drives is better than one 1TB drive (for example). It does not mean that a 10GB flash drive is better than a 1TB drive. If 100 1TB flash drives cost the same as or less than 100 10GB flash drives of the same size, speed, reliability, and compatibility, you're going to be better off choosing the 1TB ones.
"Of course I haven't used it."
Not even once, at a shop or something? But you're still qualified to be an export on every aspect of it and it's future? Wow. Snowden thinks developing libre VR is important for the free software movement, and has presumably actually checked it out. You think it isn't, on the basis of... what? Having read some stuff and dismissed it out of hand.
This whole discussion reminds me of the shit my uncles used to give me about how computers were a fad, and I was wasting my time learning about them. They couldn't be convinced they had their heads up their backsides either.
"If 100 1TB flash drives cost the same as or less than 100 10GB flash drives of the same size, speed, reliability, and compatibility, you're going to be better off choosing the 1TB ones."
Which is why the smaller ones stop being available, so even though the older, more limited technology is adequate to some of my needs, I'm forced to upgrade because of economies of scale. Like CRT fans were forced to "upgrade" to flatscreens. You repeating points I've already made back to me, ones you previously disagreed with, but you still think your right. It's hilarious.
> Not even once, at a shop or something?
No. There aren't any shops that sell that anywhere near where I live, to my knowledge. Heck, I haven't even heard anyone in my local area talking about it. I'm sure they do occasionally, but it clearly isn't that important to them. The current gaming trend in my experience isn't VR, it's MOBAs.
> But you're still qualified to be an export on every aspect of it and it's future?
No, but you don't need to be an expert to comment on the usefulness or longevity of a novel technology.
> Snowden thinks developing libre VR is important for the free software movement, and has presumably actually checked it out.
Why would you presume that? Ed Snowden has never presented himself as a gamer, and VR is not widespread.
> You think it isn't, on the basis of... what? Having read some stuff and dismissed it out of hand.
No, on the basis that the technology can't do anything useful better than other input methods which are simpler and cheaper, at least nothing I can think of.
If it involved directly sending signals to the brain so that you can actually feel like it is real, that would be different, and dangerous. But right now, VR is just attaching a headset with a screen in front of your eyes. A novel concept for certain types of games, sure. Probably even very cool to experience. But there is no basis for this to be a computing revolution precedent.
You keep likening it to computers themselves, but computers have always been used for practical work, and video games came long after. Even Spacewar, sometimes argued to be the first video game, was only made to test the hardware it ran on; the hardware was actually designed to do other things which were more important.
The exact same thing happened with keyboards, mouses, and most recently, smartphone touchscreens. Nobody wants to play games that require a touchscreen rather than physical controls. But games started using touch controls because there was a practical reason (substantially cutting costs and reducing size) for phones to start only having touchscreens, and so touchscreen games were born. A lot of people can't stand playing games on a keyboard, but it's useful for real work, and so because it's readily available, it's one of the most common ways people play games today, to the point where we even have keyboards specifically made for gaming.
In any case, I am not adversarial to efforts toward making libre VR games. Any new libre software is a contribution, even if it's for hardware that most people don't have and never will have. I just don't think it's an essential effort. Libre games in general are more important than specifically VR games.
> I'm forced to upgrade because of economies of scale.
And why would you want to buy a lower-capacity flash drive if a higher-capacity flash drive has more storage space and is equal in every other way? This is not like the CRT vs the LCD at all. One is a fundamental change, the other is an incremental improvement.
You said:
>> Why would you presume that? Ed Snowden has never presented himself as a gamer, and VR is not widespread.
Read what I wrote, because I didn't mention games in the context of Snowden. What I did write was:
>> Snowden thinks developing libre VR is important for the free software movement, and has presumably actually checked it out.
I'm not assuming this, I know it for a fact, because I heard him say it in his keynote at LibrePlanet a couple of years back:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7aTHdbRXK3Q
>> Even Spacewar, sometimes argued to be the first video game, was only made to test the hardware it ran on <<
The first video game was Pong, created in 1972:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pong
... years before the first word processor in 1979
https://www.thoughtco.com/wordstar-the-first-word-processor-1992664
>> But games started using touch controls because there was a practical reason (substantially cutting costs and reducing size) for phones to start only having touchscreens, and so touchscreen games were born <<
I remember using a touchscreen game in an arcade a decade or so before the first handheld devices with touchscreens came out.
These are all classic examples of you making a lot of noise about something you clearly haven't made the least bit of effort to inform yourself about. I'm no longer interested in carrying on this discussion.
"at least nothing I can think of."
Yes. this is clearly where the limitation is.
If you are talking about the keynote where Snowden participates in
videoconference with Gillmor and receives almost 2min of applauses, and
where he, like Matthias Kirschner from FSFE, tells us not to rely on
corporations, then you probably are better of referencing to this link
instead of YouTube:
[[http://media.libreplanet.org/u/libreplanet/m/libreplanet-2016-the-last-lighthouse-3d51/]].
Yes, that's the one. The comments about libre VR are toward the end, from memory.
It's around the 36 minute mark. I found it. And no, he didn't say he's used it. In fact, he said it was coming out soon, so he couldn't have used it at that time. He described VR as "disruptive" and suggested that the libre software movement should make practical uses of it before proprietary software developers do. He imagines virtual offices as being a thing VR would be used for. I disagree.
But as you have noted, this discussion is entirely pointless anyway. As I said, I am not adversarial to libre VR software, and since I have zero interest in it as a developer, I was never going to contribute to it anyway. Even if I'm wrong about it being a fad, it makes no difference.
> I remember being told in the 90s that because those were "specialized equipment that not everyone has", I was wasting my time with teaching activists to use websites and email lists.
There's a big difference between something that is only useful for particular kinds of games and something that is useful for real work. The Internet is and always has been a long-distance communication system with real-world applications. It also wasn't novel in any sense until the dot-com boom, which happened long after its establishment.
PCs were also always useful for real work. Traditionally that work was typing up and printing documents. This wasn't exciting or novel, either; it was just a better, albeit more expensive tool than e.g. a typewriter.
> Dance Dance Revolution, SingStar, GuitarHero, implemented in VR
I don't think you understand how difficult it would be to program any of these. Just using buttons is far easier, and the VR version is not so much better that the extra effort is worth it (if it's even better at all; how would Guitar Hero benefit from VR?).
> Everyone else I know uses them *lots*.
I have never seen anyone take out their phone and hold it out in front of their face to video call someone. I have seen lots of people take out their phone and do a plain old phone call. You seem to be missing the point: science fiction writers imagined that video calls would replace audio calls because they make it more like talking to someone in person, but they haven't, and for good reason: they're more inconvenient than they're worth in most situations. People use Skype at their computers while doing things like playing multiplayer games, or for video hangouts, or other occasions like that. Standard phone calls are still used for everything else.
Heck, a lot of people don't even stream video when they do Skype calls. They just use it like a traditional phone in those cases.
> I see no reason to think VR conferencing will be any different
I see a reason: there isn't a demand to "conference" with a bunch of cartoon avatars that move. If you want to see the people you're talking to, you want to see the actual people. VR can't do that any better than plain old video streams.
> a group of people using VR could play any tabletop game together over the net
Surely you must be joking. That doesn't require VR at all; there are plenty of examples of computer board game programs with net connectivity. VR would just make the programming substantially more difficult.
Also, this is first-person, as is the painting example you described. The character is you, controlling the board game pieces. To say that it's not first-person because the first-person view and virtual reality experience is an entirely pointless layer on top of the actual game you're playing is kind of silly.
I largely agree with the point you aim to make, Onpon, but there are a few claims you have made above with which I beg to differ.
Firstly, although I'm not a fortune teller, there do seem to be several 'work' applications for VR, some of which are already emerging. I recall reading about its use in training for employees in some occupation (medicine?), acting as a kind of simulator. It could also be a major frontier in 'blind testing' for hiring employees, allowing the concept to be expanded to professions where a document/image/etc. isn't enough to allow skill to be evaluated.
Secondly, although I have no doubts you have never seen a video call done with a phone, it does happen reasonably often. At least among teenagers in my corner of the world, many individuals use Apple's "FaceTime" software to do exactly that, though using an iPad is admittedly more common (understandably). I doubt any similar practice will be possible in the free-software world for a long time (why anybody would want to use small screens and keys anyway still eludes me), but it does happen.
Just as a point of note, too, I believe I read in the same article as the 'use in occupation' statement came from that there were plans to develop some sort of 'OpenGL-like thing for VR'. Not sure if it's true/likely/etc., but that should at least provide a foot in the door for free software. That's assuming, of course, that VR takes off, climate change is managed, resource production stabilises, and that nobody decides nuclear warfare is a good idea. If all that happens, I suspect free software will be valued more as an ideal inherently.
>> I have never seen anyone take out their phone and hold it out in front of their face to video call someone. <<
Really? You don't know anyone who uses speakerphone? I always prefer to put calls on speaker and hold my phone in front of my face. If my phone supported video calling over the net with libre software, instead of super-expensive cell networks, I would use it whenever I had net access.
Here's an example of a recently produced VR warfare game called 'Out of Ammo':
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lbiHR7fMy7A
It's an 'eye of god' strategy game, in which the player controls a group of soldiers. So not a first-person game, although you can move in and out of a first-person view from each soldier's POV. The added challenges of programming for VR doesn't seem to have stopped them, although admittedly the graphics are at the level of the first Tekken or the first Wii games.
The (currently) small audience of gamers who own the hardware doesn't seem to have stopped them either. Yes, it does limit the size of the market they can sell the game too, but like libre gaming, this is chicken/egg problem. People owning more VR sets (or using GNU/Linux for gaming) will encourage more development of VR software (or games that run natively on GNU/Linux), but at the same time, exactly the reverse is true.
> The added challenges of programming for VR doesn't seem to have stopped them
Of course not, it's a proprietary commercial game taking advantage of a fad. Why would the challenges stop them?
> The (currently) small audience of gamers who own the hardware doesn't seem to have stopped them either.
Of course not. It's a fad. There's a current market for it.
None of this has anything to do with whether or not VR will last.
> People owning more VR sets (or using GNU/Linux for gaming) will encourage more development of VR software (or games that run natively on GNU/Linux), but at the same time, exactly the reverse is true.
I beg to differ. When you're talking about libre software, neither is true.
If anything, the example you're citing is evidence of this. You see how the game is being controlled? It's exactly like a mouse. Exactly. There is no advantage brought in by the fact that VR is used. So why would a libre software developer, developing a game either as a hobby or at least at very low cost, go through the trouble to make use of VR for that? It would be like using a mouse in SuperTuxKart. Yeah, you can do it, but it would be a complete waste of time. That is, of course, unless there's a fad going on, you're developing a proprietary commercial game, and you want to take advantage of that fad. That's what's happening here.
"it's a proprietary commercial game"
That's true, but also irrelevant. As Stallman is at pains to point out, commercial is not the opposite of libre. If RocketWerks had released the source code to the game on release (or even developed the engine as an open source project from the get-go), it would make no difference to the commercial proposition of the game as a finished work of interactive entertainment. The reason they didn't has to do with the established culture of secrecy and "intellectual property" fetishim in the industry, not any practical reason why VR game development has to be proprietary.
BTW I was also speaking to a friend who is an avid car racing gamer. He owns a steering wheel and pedal controllers, and uses two screens, one provides a 'through the windscreen' view, while the other allows him to look to the side or behind. Friends he races against on the same networked game use VR headsets instead of multiple screens, and they can look in any direction and see a simulation of what they would see if they were in a real car.
> As Stallman is at pains to point out, commercial is not the opposite of libre.
Who said it is? But if your primary purpose is to make money, which is the only reason you would latch onto VR (especially for such a pointless use as this), then why on Earth would you release the source code? It's not like anyone in the gaming industry has ethical standards. All you have to do to have moral high-ground is not use DRM.
Libre games are always developed by people who either are doing it as a hobby, or believe that the social contribution of making the game libre are more important than making more money. Because without copyright restrictions and popular proprietary game engines, making money off of games is much harder.
"if your primary purpose is to make money, which is the only reason you would latch onto VR"
I'm starting to suspect you're just trolling me for the lulz. Nobody could be possibly be this cartoonishly cynical. There are as many reasons to get involved in the evolution VR as there are to get involved in computers or the internet generally, and only one of them is money. I'm here promoting libre VR, are you accusing me of being motivated purely by the prospects for pecuniary gain?
"It's not like anyone in the gaming industry has ethical standards."
"Libre games are always developed by people who either are doing it as a hobby, or believe that the social contribution of making the game libre are more important than making more money."
If you go back far enough in time, these kinds of cynical comments were being lobbed from the moral high ground about the publishing industry, and free code software in general. Suffice to say, the world has moved on, ebook vendors have mostly abandoned DRM, and plenty of people are developing free code for a living, and building successful businesses around it. I see no reason why the same progress can't be made in the gaming industry.
"Because without copyright restrictions and popular proprietary game engines, making money off of games is much harder."
Without slaves, making money off cotton is much harder, but it's not impossible, and it doesn't mean it won't happen.
> I'm here promoting libre VR, are you accusing me of being motivated purely by the prospects for pecuniary gain?
No. Don't be silly. I haven't accused you of anything. I just think you are confusing a current fad with a precedent for the future. VR is exactly the same kind of fad that 3-D movies have been time and time again.
You haven't provided any examples of practical use-cases for VR to do actual work that cannot be done by other equipment which is much simpler and cheaper. Its only use-case is as a novelty for the upper class, mostly for gaming.
"VR is exactly the same kind of fad that 3-D movies have been time and time again."
I don't know about where you live, but 3D movies are a mainstream technology in movie theatres all over the country where I live. Lots of people go to see them, and when the tech is used well by the film-makers, it's awesome! I saw Avatar in 3D (awesome!), I saw Alice in Wonderland is 3D (crappy but it was crappy movie IMHO), I saw Passengers in 3D (awesome!). The tech is starting to appear in high-end home theatre systems, from which it will trickle down over the next few years into affordable home entertainment tech.
So, not really a good example for the case you're trying to make.
> I don't know about where you live, but 3D movies are a mainstream technology in movie theatres all over the country where I live.
It is here, too. You do realize that 3-D has been pushed on the masses for decades, right? The first time I encountered 3-D in movies was Spy Kids 3-D, 12 years ago and long before Avatar. But there were 3-D phases long before that, too.
Last comment on this subject. If your point is that sometimes technology has a few false starts before it achieves mainstream adoption, then we agree. VR has had a series of false starts too. Do you know what the evidence is that this time is different:
* Oculus Rift pulled in $2.5 million in crowdfunding. That's two million dollars worth of people who want this technology to exist, and are worth giving away their money to help it happen. How many other things, including things for which there is healthy demand, have crowdfunded anywhere near that much?
https://techcrunch.com/2014/03/26/a-brief-history-of-oculus/
* The Oculus Rift headset offered on KickStarter was $300. When the first flatscreens came out they cost more than that. Your contention that the hardware is ridiculously expensive is factually incorrect.
All your arguments in support of your inexplicable belief that developing libre gaming on VR is a waste of time, consist of repeating over and over that there isn't demand and that the gear is too expensive. These two points above convince me you are wrong on both counts. That doesn't mean you have to develop for VR. If just means you need to stock blocking those who do with fatalistic and uninformed claims. Over and out on this subject.
> I recall reading about its use in training for employees in some occupation (medicine?), acting as a kind of simulator.
I see two problems with this:
1. Any simulation done this way is not the same as actually doing the job. You don't actually feel anything, so how could it be? It's still far too abstract.
2. There's the programming work you still have to do, which has to be replicated for each individual job.
So what is the advantage of training someone this way, wasting resources and not even training the person perfectly, when you can train them either on the job (in cases where failing to do the job isn't going to cause particular harm) or with a real, physical model (in cases where failing would be catastrophic, like surgery)? Seriously, think about it: would you trust someone to perform surgery on you if their only experience was with a VR simulation of surgery, which for all you know might have bugs and doesn't give him the same experience anyway? I wouldn't! Traditional training is still going to be necessary, so you might as well forgo the VR step.
> It could also be a major frontier in 'blind testing' for hiring employees, allowing the concept to be expanded to professions where a document/image/etc. isn't enough to allow skill to be evaluated.
Possible, but only if VR becomes and remains ubiquitous, because otherwise employees would be dooming themselves to having very few potential candidates. Besides, mastering a simulation of a job is never going to be the same as mastering the actual job. Even ignoring dynamic, unexpected circumstances you have to deal with if the job can't just be automated, there's still the fact that you're not manipulating real objects, you're pretending to. And then factor in the whole cost thing (how complex it is to build the simulation and have it even remotely realistic).
> I doubt any similar practice will be possible in the free-software world for a long time
Nonsense. It's perfectly possible; try Jitsi. I think using Jitsi through meet.jit.si even lets you chat with people who don't have Jitsi, though don't quote me on that.
> (why anybody would want to use small screens and keys anyway still eludes me)
Because it's more portable. You can't fit a tablet in your pocket, you need a whole case for it.
Before you re-invent the wheel, check out the Lakka distro http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=lakka
The GUI is an echo of Sony's Xross Media Bar.
Clearly the distro meant primarily to run non-libre older console games in emulation, but if you're looking for a console "10 foot interface", that one's available to lift.
Thanks for the reference. I'll add it to my wiki page on libre gaming. But do you know if Lakka is 100% free code (deblobbed kerner etc)? If not, GOLD could be built as a liberation of Lakka in the same way that Trisquel is a liberation of Ubuntu, Parabola is a liberation of Arch, and ABrowser/ IceCat are liberations of Firefox.