Wa can change, but not in one day
I stopped playing proprietary games about a year ago (I play only on a PC, so no console gaming either).
Try playing only free games for some time and see how it goes. The proprietary games may eventually feel redundant.
OP:
they can bring new GNU/Linux users and these users can be enlightened to the free software principles.
They can, and I reckon they'd do anything they can to prevent themselves from doing that.
Oh, and be successful at the prevention thing as well.
Not the worst DRM in the world, in comparison to other services, at least.
I am a translator!
yes..but they are still waiting for you Gordon..in the test chaaaaaaambeeeeer
Hi,
I don't want to up the subject (but I'm doing it...), just wan't to say that I'm going to take a big decision for my gaming hobby.
Instead of getting rid of any private source code, I wan't to get rid of all the DRM-side of Steam; I will purchase my games on GOG.com which provide all the games without any DRM.
I think it can be a good step forward for me and my foss conscience.
Thanks again to all !
I don't understand your logic.
Running a DRM'd piece of proprietary software is essentially the same as running a non-DRM'd piece of proprietary software.
Either way, you're running proprietary software.
If you're going to use non-DRM'd games, you might as well indulge in DRM'd games, and you might as well install Windows.
When you can justify that amount of proprietary software, you only go down a road of further justifications. Canonical is a prime example of this road.
http://tep.shoutwiki.com/wiki/Software
That link has some great games on it, including Minetest, Katawa Shoujo, Doom 3, Dark Mod, Assault Cube, Red Eclipse...
I am a translator!
exactly
It's good that you try to improve your freedom-situation, but my experience is:
if you install " a little bit" proprietary software on your system, you will install more and more, and more.
Just because there is this thought like: oh well, one application more or less won't make any difference.
What about buying a gaming console? It's like: the older, the better (from a freedom / privacy perspective), so you can make your own compromise.
At least your pc would stay libre.
"if you install " a little bit" proprietary software on your system, you will install more and more, and more."
this is not always the case
i had a few blobs (wifi and gpu) and minecraft
on my old system but i eventually got rid of them when i got a externel wifi card and made a sacrifice with the gpu
but there were times when i was running ubuntu
the urge to play gta san Andreas was too strong for me
and i installed win 7 :(
so its ok i think to install a few blobs in the short term if it means
you will phase it out
but in the long term it just gets worse
Another good source of DRM free games is through Desura. [
http://www.desura.com/]
On Mon Feb 16 2015 at 12:09:48 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> "if you install " a little bit" proprietary software on your system, you
> will
> install more and more, and more."
>
> this is not always the case
> i had a few blobs (wifi and gpu) and minecraft
> on my old system but i eventually got rid of them when i got a externel
> wifi
> card and made a sacrifice with the gpu
>
> but there were times when i was running ubuntu
> the urge to play gta san Andreas was too strong for me
> and i installed win 7 :(
>
> so its ok i think to install a few blobs in the short term if it means
> you will phase it out
> but in the long term it just gets worse
>
Again, "Running a DRM'd piece of proprietary software is essentially the same as running a non-DRM'd piece of proprietary software.
Either way, you're running proprietary software.
If you're going to use non-DRM'd games, you might as well indulge in DRM'd games, and you might as well install Windows.
When you can justify that amount of proprietary software, you only go down a road of further justifications. Canonical is a prime example of this road."
Software with DRM prevents the user from running their software. Software with no DRM does not. DRM itself is pure evil and worth avoiding.
I have to question the value of using GOG or Desura as a replacement for Steam though. Many Steam games do not appear in GOG or Desura's catalog, or at least that was the situation a handful of years ago. One may as well take another step and only play free software games.
I have also deleted DRM from my Android
Regards.
________________________________________
De: name at domain [name at domain] en nombre de name at domain [name at domain]
Enviado: martes, 17 de febrero de 2015 06:57
Para: name at domain
Asunto: Re: [Trisquel-users] Wa can change, but not in one day
Software with DRM prevents the user from running their software. Software
with no DRM does not. DRM itself is pure evil and worth avoiding.
I have to question the value of using GOG or Desura as a replacement for
Steam though. Many Steam games do not appear in GOG or Desura's catalog, or
at least that was the situation a handful of years ago. One may as well take
another step and only play free software games.
'Software with DRM prevents the user from running their software. Software with no DRM does not. '
So actually, proprietary software with drm is actually better than proprietary software without drm.... The first one at least prevents the user from running the proprietary software from time to time.
DRM can also have entirely positive effects for the end-user. If you have
all your games on Steam and your system dies ... you just install Steam and
get them all back. Have a Kindle? You can manage your books from any
computer. Super convenient, and most people don't care what's going on
beyond that.
It's a matter of ideology, and relying on qualitative arguments of
good/bad ... that just goes nowhere, and this is just a circlejerk. When it
comes down to it, DRM is non-free, and that's against the ideals of free
software.
On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 1:54:48 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> 'Software with DRM prevents the user from running their software. Software
> with no DRM does not. '
>
> So actually, proprietary software with drm is actually better than
> proprietary software without drm.... The first one at least prevents the
> user
> from running the proprietary software from time to time.
>
> If you have all your games on Steam and your system dies ... you just install Steam and get them all back.
How is that a positive effect of DRM?. You can do the same with free software. In any case, you should make backups and you can back up free programs with no complications.
> Have a Kindle? You can manage your books from any computer. Super convenient, and most people don't care what's going on beyond that.
That has nothing to do with DRM.
> It's a matter of ideology, and relying on qualitative arguments of good/bad ... that just goes nowhere, and this is just a circlejerk.
But I think that you have just argued for the qualitative merits of DRM. Isn't that exactly the same thing you said that goes nowhere?. I really don't understand.
> When it comes down to it, DRM is non-free, and that's against the ideals of free software.
Yes; and it's important to remember that those ideals are a consequence of wanting control over our own computing. DRM and other forms of treacherous computing are completely opposite to this.
I actually believe that DRM is even worse than proprietary software, because a proprietary program may not have malicious features, even though it's still bad because it doesn't respect the users' essential freedoms, however DRM is designed to restrict the user from what technology normally lets him do with his media, like using the software he wants to read the file, copying it or sharing it. I'm against watermarking too, even though you can use free software. This sharing=stealing propaganda has to end, this war on sharing is being as effective as the war on drugs.
Wow. So not a damn one of you knows what DRM is? That's ... alarming.
On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 9:04:49 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> I actually believe that DRM is even worse than proprietary software,
> because
> a proprietary program may not have malicious features, even though it's
> still
> bad because it doesn't respect the users' essential freedoms, however DRM
> is
> designed to restrict the user from what technology normally lets him do
> with
> his media, like using the software he wants to read the file, copying it or
> sharing it. I'm against watermarking too, even though you can use free
> software. This sharing=stealing propaganda has to end, this war on sharing
> is
> being as effective as the war on drugs.
>
You don't seem to know what DRM is either, as you were saying advantages of cloud computing, not Digital Rights Management(or Digital Restrictions Management).
Oooookay. This is like trying to convince an anti-vaxxer that vaccines are
a good thing ... pointless. So, carry on, I'll just be over here.
On Tue Feb 17 2015 at 11:14:48 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> You don't seem to know what DRM is too, as you were saying advantages of
> cloud computing, not Digital Rights Management(or Digital Restrictions
> Management).
>
>This is like trying to convince an anti-vaxxer that vaccines are
>a good thing ... pointless
Bad analogy, no one ever told me any good thing DRM does, not even you, quite contrary to vaccines that have eradicated smallpox, for example. But many people told me about bad things DRM does and I've found some myself. I can't be in favor of something that doesn't have any benefits that I know.
The convenience comes from Steam allowing you to download your software from their servers if you need. This is not DRM. DRM in Steam is the requirement that you login to the Steam software to run your Steam bought software, and verify your software through their servers every time your software is used with a different system.
also all the software on steam is non-free
and that in itself it a reason not to use it
There is some free software on Steam, as far as I remember. The vast majority of games and software available on Steam are non-free though.
I think Naev is on Steam, for example. (Or if it isn't, it was at one point.)
There is plenty of FLOSS on Steam. Though, from the sounds of it, I'm not
entirely certain that the difference between being without cost and being
without limitations isn't lost on this mailing list.
On Wed Feb 18 2015 at 11:44:48 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> I think Naev is on Steam, for example. (Or if it isn't, it was at one
> point.)
>
How hard is it to turn those FLOSS games into independent packages? You would not want to implement the DRMs provided by steam and you would not really need in-game voice (Mumble can be separately used), chatting (many free software alternatives) or music playing (same thing). I guess most games do not lose much interest if in-game achievements, micro-transactions, statistics and social networking features are removed. On GNU/Linux, the package manager would take care of the updates. In the end, and if https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steam_(software) is complete, the only feature to implement are the networking and player authentication tools (that would authenticate to separate servers) and the matchmaking services.
I am a translator!
yeah, but he likes DRM!
:)
Icerf - Steam is a for-profit product by a for-profit corporation and
you're suggesting they should make a product that isn't consumer-friendly
(read: braindead). What you're asking for is a perfectly good thing to have
- but it isn't anything Valve should be making. That's like suggesting
Microsoft should open-source windows. Linux is there for that. This is why
I keep referring to this forum as a circle-jerk. You need outside
influence, Badly.
That said - most of the time, FLOSS games are distributed as both Steam
keys AND individual packages. People choose the steam keys. On purpose.
With options available to go another way.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 10:34:50 AM <name at domain> wrote:
> yeah, but he likes DRM!
> :)
>
"That's like suggesting
Microsoft should open-source windows."
Who wants to do that?
Of course we would suggest releasing it as *free software*...
Pedantics alone. Why on Earth would you suggest releasing it as free
software? It seems more and more than in this community, people are
avoiding *payment* more than wanting *freedom*. The two aren't the same
thing, and in the case of Windows, it's just not the philosophy they build
on.
Important comparison: Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism. Countries
like the US love to endlessly circlejerk over Capitalism being somehow
"right", and that every Communist country should be destroyed, every
Socialist converted somehow. That's insane, and there's absolutely zero
reason for everyone to be doing the same thing, following the same
principles.
Trisquel is free. GNU is free. Linux is Free. That's enough. Let's just
keep working on that, and getting free OPTIONS in other realms. No need to
force the non-free into freedom. Same thing as when the US decides it needs
to force "liberty" upon countries that never asked for it, and fall shortly
after we impose our ideals.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 1:29:48 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> "That's like suggesting
> Microsoft should open-source windows."
>
> Who wants to do that?
> Of course we would suggest releasing it as *free software*...
>
"It seems more and more than in this community, people are
avoiding *payment* more than wanting *freedom*. "
In that case, i would have suggested releasing it as "freeware"; i don't know which term could emphasize the freedom aspect more than "free software".
So how do you come to this absurd conclusion?
"Trisquel is free. GNU is free. Linux is Free. That's enough."
It's not; *every* piece of software existing on this planet should be free as in freedom, because every single bit of proprietary software is an injustice, designed to take away users freedom, and this should _never_ be done.
By the way, linux isn't free; it contains proprietary blobs.
"No need to
force the non-free into freedom."
That's - by our definition of freedom - a silly statement by itself. Freedom means "having control over your own life", so by definition, you can't be forced into freedom; otherwise, the state achieved in the end would not be freedom.
A final remark on this idea of "taking away the freedom to be non-free":
Let's suppose there are people who want to be restricted by non-free software really badly. It's a completely unrealistic scenario, but let's just asume for now.
They are like "please lock away the code and control my computing".
Well, just because nobody on the whole planet is doing as they wish, that doesn't mean that their freedom has been taken away. They still have control over their own lives; just not over the lives of others.
It's just: nobody is assisting them in hurting themselves.
Firstly, shiretoko, I appreciate you for engaging in the conversation
despite complete disagreement. I'd like us to understand one another better.
I have a question. Have you Ever worked in IT? By that, I actually mean
consumer-facing IT. You'd be shocked at just how many people want a
computer to behave in an entirely consumeristic manner. They want to have
somebody to call when things go wrong - somebody responsible other than the
self. They want to not be allowed to do something that might get them into
trouble. They want everything to be an iPhone. Those people haven't been
brainwashed. They do know there are alternatives. They -want- a nonfree
system that locks them down. It's what they willingly and eagerly pay for,
and it's the majority of the population. We, the people who want freedom,
are the minority. The two need to coexist. It's the same thing as somebody
specifically wanting to live in a Socialist governed country (which,
personally, I want). Self-reliance is only good for those who want it.
A whole lot of people see free software as simply a way to get software for
free. Unfortunately no matter how it's worded, they aren't going to see it
differently. It's just not a path of thinking that they'd like to travel
down, and they don't want to understand. Again, this is a huge section of
the population.
If people disagreeing and opting for something different from you is insane
- you yourself have an insane ideology. I'm sure we need people like you in
this world and in the free software movement, to push certain things along,
but in the end it's religious extremism.
Finally - people don't design non-free or proprietary software in order to
take away anybody's freedom. They do it to provide a product for a
free-market capitalist model, allowing them to support said software by
having full control of the way it works. There's a reason Windows and Mac
OS are the two most used operating systems. It's because most people *want*
that, and are making a *free* choice to have it.
Free software is important. There's no need to demonize the alternatives.
Now, if you have any new points to make, we can debate those. At this
point, if I'm not grossly misunderstanding the situation, the disagreement
is not based on different understandings, but differently chosen positions.
I understand yours and disagree with it. You understand mine (I think) and
disagree with it. This does not need a resolution.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 2:49:49 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> A final remark on this idea of "taking away the freedom to be non-free":
> Let's suppose there are people who want to be restricted by non-free
> software
> really badly. It's a completely unrealistic scenario, but let's just asume
> for now.
> They are like "please lock away the code and control my computing".
> Well, just because nobody on the whole planet is doing as they wish, that
> doesn't mean that their freedom has been taken away. They still have
> control
> over their own lives; just not about the lives of others.
> It's just: nobody is assisting them in hurting themselves.
>
>
I don't know where you get this bizarre idea that users want to not have access to source code, or to be actively restricted from doing things that could be useful (such as making copies of something). No, people use Steam because it provides access to a convenient repository of games, and a community. People use Windows because it's installed by default, and because more proprietary programs are available for it than any other system. None of these reasons for using proprietary software have anything to do with whether or not the software is libre or has digital restriction mechanisms. If these programs were libre, they would only stand to gain more popularity; it wouldn't cause them to lose popularity.
Exactly! Users want to be able to ring up someone and say "Hey, my computer's flupped up" or "Can you add this feature?" but proprietary software doesn't allow this.
And users use Free Software without realizing it- I commonly see people using VLC, Firefox, etc, so you can't say that they *want* it to be locked down.
They don't want a non-free system that's locked down, they just want a system that works and is consumer-friendly. Free Software is inherently comsumer-friendly, and allows them freedom as well.
And of course, developers don't develop non-free software to do harm (Mostly) because they don't think they're doing harm.
Users that just want a consumer-friendly program and those who want freedom could easily co-exist. Just give them a good program, and they'll be happy.
This conversation has devolved into a discussion of an imaginary world
based on idealistic assumptions and zero data ... sorry, no point in
continuing beyond that point.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 3:54:48 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> Exactly! Users want to be able to ring up someone and say "Hey, my
> computer's
> flupped up" or "Can you add this feature?" but proprietary software doesn't
> allow this.
> They don't want a non-free system that's locked down, they just want a
> system
> that works and is consumer friendly. Free Software is inherintly
> comsumer-friendly, and allows them freedom as well.
> And of course, developers don't develop non-free software to do harm
> (Mostly)
> because they don't think they're doing harm.
> You can make a fine profit whilist developing free software! Doom 3 BFG is
> a
> fair example- the engine is Free Software, but the game assets are
> non-free,
> which is alright with me- (Note that Trisquel supports free-culture. I
> think
> free-culture is a nice thing, but it's not something I believe in wholly,
> so
> I'm alright with non-free art assets and such).
> ID Software released the engine for Doom 3 BFG 2 months after the game was
> released and- shock- still made a profit! Huh, go figure!
>
> And users use Free Software without realizing it- I commonly see people
> using
> VLC, Firefox, etc, so you can't say that they *want* it to be locked down.
>
Perhaps it has, but could you clarify how so?
There isn't any data that users "want to be a non-free, locked-down" system.
There's data that says Doom 3 BFG's source was released under the GPL, and data that proves ID still made a profit, though.
I'm not sure why you're claiming a lack of data, when the market share
alone is much more solid than your example of one individual game released
by corporate entity for profit, with non-free blobs. You're in a vacuum
here, disconnected from the thoughts and feelings of the larger user base,
which isn't using free software. The conversation has devolved because you
believe - without cause - that everyone on the planet must agree with what
you see to be Right. It's arrogant at best, wrong at worst, and doesn't aid
the cause.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 4:49:49 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> Perhaps it has, but could you clarify how so?
> There isn't any data that users "want to be a non-free, locked-down"
> system.
> There's data that says Doom 3 BFG's source was released under the GPL, and
> data that proves ID still made a profit, though.
>
Market data just proves that selling proprietary software works, not that it's the only way to make a profit off of software.
Non-free blobs? Not that I'm aware of. Doom 3 is Free Software, but the art assets aren't. Art is nonfunctional data that isn't software.
And when did I say that you have to agree with me? You can believe that proprietary software is fantastical for all I care.
I'll disagree with you, though- I am allowed to comment my viewpoint in response to you, right? Or do I have to ask permission first?
"Art is nonfunctional data that isn't software" - Many would say you're
entirely wrong on that, especially considering software itself could be
considered art.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 5:59:49 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> Market data just proves that selling proprietary software works, not that
> it's the only way to make a profit off of software.
> Non-free blobs? Not that I'm aware of. Doom 3 is Free Software, but the art
> assets aren't. Art is nonfunctional data that isn't software.
> And when did I say that you have to agree with me? You can believe that
> proprietary software is fantastical for all I care.
> I'll disagree with you, though- I am allowed to comment my viewpoint in
> response to you, right? Or do I have to ask permission first?
>
Even if software is art (I disagree with that idea entirely), it doesn't follow that art is software. That's called affirming the consequent:
onpon4 - I doubt anybody needs the logic/debate class lesson, I'm sure
we've all learned the logical fallacies before. I was absolutely equating
software and art, in both directions. It's an opinion stance, and there's
nothing concrete to argue there, just my own view.
Icerf - I'm not a troll. Economics suggest that people do not generally
want personal responsibility for their goods and devices. If you've ever
done consumer IT or phone support, you'll find that quite a lot of people
get upset that your service 'let them' get into trouble. Example of that
being Verizon customers forever complaining that the company 'allows' them
to go over their data plan allowance. Oddly, they still don't switch to a
provider like Ting who values freedom at all. The actual data to back up
any of this is readily available to you if you care to poke around. You're
looking only at what supports yourself though, so I wouldn't bet on that.
I never once said people have a taste for abuse. You call it abuse. People
who want it call it 'protection', 'support' and a number of other things.
Right or wrong, the notion that non-free software is abuse by default is an
ideological stance and not a factual one. You're in the position of
attempting to Tell people what they want, rather than asking. And why? For
their own protection, you say ... which sounds an awful lot like any
tyrannical dictator. Freedom isn't freedom without choice.
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 6:19:48 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> Even if software is art (I disagree with that idea entirely), it doesn't
> follow that art is software. That's called affirming the consequent:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Affirming_the_consequent
>
Protecting users from accidentally doing things they don't want to do isn't a digital restriction, and it isn't even remotely similar to denying source code. Lots of libre programs have this kind of feature. Some examples:
* Trisquel's package manager warns you if you try to install a package that isn't signed by a trusted party (as you can see in a recent thread), to protect you from man-in-the-middle attacks.
* GNOME recently decided to not include an option to disable JavaScript in the graphical preferences window of Epiphany, to prevent confusion.
* GNOME's user accounts manager doesn't give you an obvious way to create an account without a password.
* The Tor Browser Bundle warns you very strongly against opening files after downloading them through Tor, to protect your identity from being revealed by external requests in things like PDFs.
* The Tor Browser Bundle and IceCat clear your clipboard any time you load a new page, to prevent malicious JavaScript code from reading sensitive information off of it.
* Any place you type a password, it isn't displayed. Either you see dots instead, or you see nothing at all.
Do you genuinely misunderstood JadedCtrl's point or are you a troll? She points out that people keep on buying Doom 3 once it was liberated, hence showing that they were not buying it *because* it is proprietary software.
Your statement that "[the majority of the population] wants a nonfree system that locks them down; it's what they willingly and eagerly pay for" looks preposterous and you do not back it with anything.
Well, you pretend that market share prove your points but the reasons onpon4 lists ("convenient", "installed by default", "more proprietary programs [on the default system]") are far more convincing ones that a "taste for abuse"!
Yet, you claim that *we* are depicting "an imaginary world based on idealistic assumptions and zero data"!
Where do you see that "in this community, people are avoiding *payment* more than wanting *freedom*"?! Quote a sentence!
And no, general statements on "Capitalism vs. Socialism vs. Communism" still have nothing to do with making a free software game work without Steam.
I do not know what you mean by "forcing the non-free into freedom" (besides the lack of any evidence, all your statements are too vague to be properly discussed). Just notice that the LibreOffice, Mozilla Firefox, Java, etc. originally were proprietary software that were liberated. And they are not minor free software applications!
you're suggesting they should make a product that isn't consumer-friendly (read: braindead).
No. I am suggesting *we* (the free software community) develop the networking pieces (reusing existing free software libraries) that are missing to get those free software games working directly on top of GNU/Linux and not through a "platform". The games will probably have to be modified as well but it can be done if they are free software.
That said, now that I have read some of your post, I am not sure I can trust your claim that "there is plenty of FLOSS on Steam". Can you list at least some of those games?
That was actually a gross misunderstanding on my part (I do admit being
wrong WHEN I'm wrong). There's plenty of FLOSS on Desura, not Steam.
Though, it doesn't appear that there's any reason for that, other than
FLOSS-supporting folk generally believe Steam to be pure evil and won't
distribute that way. Though, many of the games on Steam are available as
stand-alone DRM-free packages. People just prefer generally to use the
DRM'd versions for convenience (and people DO like convenience at almost
any cost).
On Thu Feb 19 2015 at 5:34:49 PM <name at domain> wrote:
> you're suggesting they should make a product that isn't consumer-friendly
> (read: braindead).
>
> No. I am suggesting *we* (the free software community) develop the
> networking
> pieces (reusing existing free software libraries) that are missing to get
> those free software games working directly on top of GNU/Linux and not
> through a "platform". The games will probably have to be modified as well
> but
> it can be done if they are free software.
>
> That said, now that I have read some of your post, I am not sure I can
> trust
> your claim that "there is plenty of FLOSS on Steam". Can you list at least
> some of those games?
>
Most people don't even know what DRM is. There is no such thing as covenience in DRM for the user, at least.