Steam client coming to Linux. Will you guys still hate it?
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios
As we all know, the state of games on Linux is horrible. With the majority of love for the big titles on consoles and on Windows, us Linux gamers have had to settle for low quality and watered down clones. But guess what... Steam for Linux is coming soon: http://www.webupd8.org/2012/04/valvle-works-on-steam-for-linux.html
For now it is the client and the Source engine, but that includes the Half-Life 2, Left 4 Dead, Portal, and Team Fortress 2 series. This is good because it is the start of bringing AAA games to Linux natively and could encourage other big game makers to follow suit. Desura is nice for being a totally open piece of software, but many of the big publishers aren't putting their titles on it. Publishers love Stream.
I know some of you will still refuse to play it because they are run on proprietary engines and all that, but my perspective is that games are art just like movies, music and books. I know the artwork itself is copyrighted and thats ok with you guys, but I'm willing to consume a game because it is a source of entertainment and not need the code. I can understand the need for computer tools to be free software or under a GPL compatible license because they are necessary for everyday life and the progression of our computer society.
Oh and this is perfect timing with Ubuntu 12.04 around the corner. :-)
I don't understand why you post questions like this. You have been on this forum long enough to already know the response you will get. Steam is proprietary software therefore it will not be included in the distro. The answer is simple.
If you want into on the FSF's position on gaming read The Free Game Lag
The issue is that most big video games have budgets in the millions since
there are a handful of artists, programmers, project managers, and marketers
to get it out the door. Each person has to get paid and the facilities where
the games are made cost money. More often than not, these developers rely on
a publisher to give them money in the guarantee that these paid workers are
completing on time.
Not trying to be a total dick here, but we have seen what most free software
games end up like. If they aren't generations behind in their engines, they
are copycats of popular proprietary games. On top of that, most developers
create them in their spare time from their paying jobs and the donations for
these free games don't match the amount to sustain a development studio like
Valve. If the amount of money poured into a free software game development
company matched the ones of like Valve, then maybe we would see a level
playing field.
The reality is that in order to create a high quality game for the masses
(much like Hollywood films) to get a high return, there is a lot of money
that needs to be raised to even start it. You can blame the Hollywood system
for that. Could be the price of the actors. Could be the price of the
equipment. Could be the workers in a union working the equipment. Thankfully
software doesn't have as many strings attached as film making so its not as
bad.
Have you read the article linked in SirGrant's post?
Again the answer is still it won't be included.
Reason #1: It doesn't matter if games cost $5 to make or $5 trillion dollars. If it is non-free it isn't included. This is for ethical reasons which I am not going to explain since you have been around long enough you should know them already.
Reason #2: If we start including non-free stuff just because it is cool/fun/hip/whatever and make exceptions for certain pieces of software we lose our free distro status. Then effectively we are the same as Ubuntu. The reason people use Trisquel over Ubuntu is because we care about freedom. If the distro stops caring about freedom people will stop caring about Trisquel and move on to another free distro.
There is nothing more to add to this discussion.
Of course I am aware it will not be included in the Trisquel repositories for
the obvious non-free nature. Since the steam client is always updating I am
guessing Valve will have their own repo for updates either via the ubuntu
update manager or through the program itself.
It does suck that the best videogames are non-free by nature. That's life and
I'm not going to deprive myself in consuming art and culture because I don't
have the complete source code to it. I didn't put in the money or man hours
to build it. I don't own the software and it doesn't matter if Stallman
believes that all software should lack an owner. That's unrealistic.
I am a member!
If you don't like Trisquel's philosophy, the Free Software Foundation, and
this community why are you here? Why ask these questions? There are a ton of
articles on the FSF's web site on the subjects you are bringing up and the
positions. You have been here a long time and this isn't just a mistake on
your part. You already know enough about the position to know that non-free
software is never acceptable.
If you don't agree with that philosophy then move on. Nobody here is going to
stop you. We have better things to do. There are distributions which
prioritise non-free software over free software as many of us have mentioned.
I think this will be the last post I make in response to your
"questions"/comments. Maybe you will then get the message freedom is the
priority for this community.
I am a translator!
I'm not much of a gamer, but I did like the few GNU/Linux free games I tried
(Neverball, Neverputt, Extreme Tux Racer, SuperTux, Frozen Bubble etc). t3g,
did you try any of the free GNU/Linux games and if so what did you think of
them?
dup'd
I wouldn't hate it, simply not use it. To be honest I have never found Steam
useful on Windows - it simply downloads loads of content in the background
even while ideling.
There are many FOSS programs that can replace steam:
http://www.desura.com/
I'm not being a troll. I'm just saying that there needs to be free software
for essentials and tools but when its related to art, there is a line that is
drawn at times.
I know in the free software way of thought, I need not only source code to
computer software, but art as well. Its the sharing menality where I am
entitled to be able to deconstruct any movie, song, or painting even though I
didn't create it. True there are youtube remixes of movie scenes and
parodies, but the free software mentality wants and feels entitled to the
entire film stock of a film.
Back on the gaming, yes the games are run as software. Its just that the
software is the unnoticed backend where the visual medium takes focus and we
are more concerned about consuming the art. I know I'm running a program when
I boot up Firefox. When I boot up a game, I'm booting up an interactive
experience.
So this is the big problem with games. We have free software games and games
built on licenced proprietary engines like the Unreal engine. The free
software games are produced in the free time of others (if they even get
released) while the licensing of engines is a big business and sustains and
could say grows the industry becuase a smaller game developer can concentrate
on the content instead of building an engine from scratch each time.
I think the biggest problem is that even if game companies used a free
software compatible engine in a game like Call of Duty, that they would be
forced to release the source code for the game. If they license the game from
Epic or whatever, their source code would be safe and have the insurance of
customer support and tools. Can't get that from these libre game engines.
One more time: watch or listen the "Copyright vs. Community" talk of rms (who is frequently called an extremist). He does not say at all that he is (or should be) "entitled to be able to deconstruct any movie, song, or painting". Not all all. Software and art are different in nature.
Ok lets think for a second. What if Valve released the Steam client for Linux
under an Apache 2.0 licence and never released the source code? The reason I
ask is that Apache 2.0 is not only a free software compatible license but
also does not require the owner to release the source.
You already know the answer. We would not include it. Look at freedom 1 and 3. Source code is a pre-condition. Even if it was under the Apache license we would still be getting a proprietary version (binary only).
Again you are not new to this community. You should know the answers to simple questions like this by now. If you don't I would advise you to see our [https://trisquel.info/en/wiki/essays-about-free-software Essays about free software] and bring yourself up to speed.
It's a given it won't be included from the start in the Trisquel repos. The main one was clarification of it being ok to install and run if it was under the Apache 2.0 license. So basically Apache 2.0 with source code is all good but Apache 2.0 without source code is bad even if the license if GPL compatible.
I know I'm not new around here and theres been plenty of posts here and there. Its just wishful thinking that Valve will release the source code for programs that pay their employee's bills and allow them to create future games. Sadly, it is the only way to get most of you to play AAA games.
- Dup -
- Dup -
Hey this very video is relevent to this thread
The issue is that most big video games have budgets in the millions since there are a handful of artists, programmers, project managers, and marketers to get it out the door. Each person has to get paid and the facilities where the games are made cost money. More often than not, these developers rely on a publisher to give them money in the guarantee that these paid workers are completing on time.
Not trying to be a total dick here, but we have seen what most free software games end up like. If they aren't generations behind in their engines, they are copycats of popular proprietary games. On top of that, most developers create them in their spare time from their paying jobs and the donations for these free games don't match the amount to sustain a development studio like Valve. If the amount of money poured into a free software game development company matched the ones of like Valve, then maybe we would see a level playing field.
The reality is that in order to create a high quality game for the masses (much like Hollywood films) to get a high return, there is a lot of money that needs to be raised to even start it. You can blame the Hollywood system for that. Could be the price of the actors. Could be the price of the equipment. Could be the workers in a union working the equipment. Thankfully software doesn't have as many strings attached as film making so its not as bad.
Have you read the article linked in SirGrant's post?
Again the answer is still it won't be included.
Reason #1: It doesn't matter if games cost $5 to make or $5 trillion
dollars. If it is non-free it isn't included. This is for ethical reasons
which I am not going to explain since you have been around long enough you
should know them already.
Reason #2: If we start including non-free stuff just because it is
cool/fun/hip/whatever and make exceptions for certain pieces of software we
lose our free distro status. Then effectively we are the same as Ubuntu.
The reason people use Trisquel over Ubuntu is because we care about freedom.
If the distro stops caring about freedom people will stop caring about
Trisquel and move on to another free distro.
There is nothing more to add to this discussion.
Of course I am aware it will not be included in the Trisquel repositories for the obvious non-free nature. Since the steam client is always updating I am guessing Valve will have their own repo for updates either via the ubuntu update manager or through the program itself.
It does suck that the best videogames are non-free by nature. That's life and I'm not going to deprive myself in consuming art and culture because I don't have the complete source code to it. I didn't put in the money or man hours to build it. I don't own the software and it doesn't matter if Stallman believes that all software should lack an owner. That's unrealistic.
The bigger reality is that I don't play games on the computer and I am a console gamer. So this doesn't affect me running trisquel since it won't be installed. On the other hand I'm glad that Linux is finally getting some gaming love.
So what point are you trying to make? Most people on here will not make an exception just for Steam, it's just another piece of propierty software that I personally have no interest in running.
You also knew that it would not be included in Trisquel, so again, what point are you trying to make? Propierty software is released all the time, backed by big companies or not, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our ways.
So what point are you trying to make? Most people on here will not make an
exception just for Steam, it's just another piece of propierty software that
I personally have no interest in running.
You also knew that it would not be included in Trisquel, so again, what point
are you trying to make? Propierty software is released all the time, backed
by big companies or not, but that doesn't mean we should abandon our ways.
> I don't own the software and it
> doesn't matter if Stallman believes that all software should lack an
> owner. That's unrealistic.
1. I don't understand why you make always references to rms, when
your differences are related to every person which believes that free
software is the only way, as the ideological postion of Trisquel
stands.
2. I don't like that you talk as if every person who
defend free software is following blindly rms statments, without
judgement.
3. You have really read very few texts of rms if you are writing
"Stallman believes that all software should lack an owner"
I believe you should be more cautelous when putting words in the mouth
of another person, since you could create missconceptions to those
people who doesn't know quite enough about what rms has written
really.
On Thu, 26 Apr 2012 21:03:27 +0200
lluvia <name at domain> wrote:
> 3. You have really read very few texts of rms if you are writing
>
> "Stallman believes that all software should lack an owner"
It was an error by my part. In fact, rms wrote a vey similar thing:
http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html
I was thinking in authority instead of ownership.
Sorry.
I agree with the other posters. I don't see any valid point you are making. You already know our philosophy. Thus you know what answer we are going to ask. So why even ask the question in the first place if you know how we will respond?
What you run on your own computer / game console is your business.
I think someone in another thread called you a troll and you said you were not one. I however can only use that word to describe you. You clearly know we abide by the GFSD but you continue to put that in jeopardy by promoting non-free software. There is no reason to use Trisquel over Ubuntu if you don't care about freedom.
Now you say you are not a troll but I don't buy it anymore. You constantly disagree with opinions on free software. That in and of itself is not a crime. However the best analogy I can think of lets say you have a community of vegetarians living by themselves and not disturbing anyone. Then you come in and say "Hey check out this meat, look how good it is". That is the definition of a troll. You came to our community and constantly stir up trouble. You already know our positions on the stuff you post so why post it. The only reason I can think of is to stir stuff up. No one is forcing you to use free software. If you don't want to that is your choice.
I agree with Chris. I won't be responding to your posts anymore at all. The only time I will do so is if I see you promoting non-free software. In that case I will respond with a simple pasted message asking you to respect the GFSD and not advertise non-free software in our community. Because if you already know we are against non-free software the only legit purpose of advertising it here is to get people riled up and I am tired of it.
I agree with the other posters. I don't see any valid point you are making.
You already know our philosophy. Thus you know what answer we are going to
ask. So why even ask the question in the first place if you know how we will
respond?
What you run on your own computer / game console is your business.
I think someone in another thread called you a troll and you said you were
not one. I however can only use that word to describe you. You clearly know
we abide by the GFSD but you continue to put that in jeopardy by promoting
non-free software. There is no reason to use Trisquel over Ubuntu if you
don't care about freedom.
Now you say you are not a troll but I don't buy it anymore. You constantly
disagree with opinions on free software. That in and of itself is not a
crime. However the best analogy I can think of lets say you have a community
of vegetarians living by themselves and not disturbing anyone. Then you come
in and say "Hey check out this meat, look how good it is". That is the
definition of a troll. You came to our community and constantly stir up
trouble. You already know our positions on the stuff you post so why post
it. The only reason I can think of is to stir stuff up. No one is forcing
you to use free software. If you don't want to that is your choice.
I agree with Chris. I won't be responding to your posts anymore at all. The
only time I will do so is if I see you promoting non-free software. In that
case I will respond with a simple pasted message asking you to respect the
GFSD and not advertise non-free software in our community. Because if you
already know we are against non-free software the only legit purpose of
advertising it here is to get people riled up and I am tired of it.
I am a member!
If you don't like Trisquel's philosophy, the Free Software Foundation, and this community why are you here? Why ask these questions? There are a ton of articles on the FSF's web site on the subjects you are bringing up and the positions. You have been here a long time and this isn't just a mistake on your part. You already know enough about the position to know that non-free software is never acceptable.
If you don't agree with that philosophy then move on. Nobody here is going to stop you. We have better things to do. There are distributions which prioritise non-free software over free software as many of us have mentioned.
I think this will be the last post I make in response to your "questions"/comments. Maybe you will then get the message freedom is the priority for this community.
I am a translator!
I'm not much of a gamer, but I did like the few GNU/Linux free games I tried (Neverball, Neverputt, Extreme Tux Racer, SuperTux, Frozen Bubble etc). t3g, did you try any of the free GNU/Linux games and if so what did you think of them?
That's a silly question, t3g. You know this is a community that follows FSF guidlines, so I don't know why you always sling anti-rms poop around, and suggest games ought to be able to be made proprietary.
I don't see why game developers would be excluded for being required to respect our freedom. The software presents the exact same moral issues of generic proprietary software, so don't bother acting like the developers' "children starve" if they don't respect our freedom, or that somehow their software deserves special artistic treatment that excuses their attacks on humanity.
The quote is of Bryan Lunduke, of course.
When I get home, I'll take a screenshot of the list of all my Free, and excellent games.
I wouldn't hate it, simply not use it. To be honest I have never found Steam useful on Windows - it simply downloads loads of content in the background even while ideling.
There are many FOSS programs that can replace steam:
http://www.desura.com/ <-- Copyrighted logo and commercial products, client itself is GPLv3
http://lutris.net/ <-- GPLv3
http://en.djl-linux.org/ <-- GPL
I suggest trying out and getting involved in creating GNU/Linux Libre games and mods, they are just as fun. Especially if you haven't tried 0AD, it's up to par with Age of Empires III. :)
The problem with Desura is that, like Ubuntu One, the server is still proprietary, making the client pretty much useless until somebody makes a server that works with the client.
The problem with the rest is that I don't really get the point of them. From what it looks like, Lutris is meant to configure and run proprietary games in the best way possible (performance-wise), and the same may go for DJL.
Honestly the best game manager is just this:
http://i.imgur.com/eIrKs.png
This is just my opinion, but game managers are useless unless you're dealing with proprietary games (ones that usually contain DRM).
Agreed. With Trisquel you don't need some "game manager" or anything like
that. You have the repos. If you want to see a list of free games just look
[http://packages.trisquel.info/brigantia/games/ there].
Sorry for restoring and old thread. Just one question. I already seen in many posts conversations about a client being Free Software but the server being proprietary, and to be honest I have a hard time understanding what this means :S
Does this means a server where the user don't have "write access"?
Is creating an empty (or fake) DB exactly just like the original but without the original users informations just for the developers tests without revealing the access to the real DB (that can contain a lot of important information, and this only if the user allowed it) is being considered a proprietary server ?
If you have the time (you or anyone else), please explain me this :D
Thanks in Advance,
Luis Da Costa
I am a member!
So the software on the desktop computer might be free software. This is software where the source code is available and anybody can make changes, fix code, and generally improve upon it.
The software on the server that is used in conjunction with this free software that runs on the desktop computer however does not necessarily have this code available. In that instance the software running on the server is non-free. If the source code was available under a free license that is running on the server then it would not be proprietary.
So if I understand right, this doesn't have anything to do with Databases and informations hold in them, it has only to do with the software that was created by the enterprise and that is used to communicate with the software right ?
But (and I can be totally wrong here), for a software like desura, they don't need anything else than a Database (MySQL for example) and a directory where all the files are. I mean they could use something to block the user to go there directly by the url and by this downloading paid software without having to pay, so is that kind of code we are talking ?
For instance, RMS talked about the Amazon example, and the fact that it isn't possible to buy anonymously and by cash. But users might want to let the company treat some of their informations if the company asked to (but also have the possibility to do the same anonymously without restriction), and in terms of money, anonymous or not in the end it is the same for the person receiving this money, but would that be bad since it isn't taking the users freedom ?
I always wondering that because I already asked myself how can a Free Software company, sell free software and be sure that at least from their website, only those who pay could get it from the server (even knowing that outside everyone could share it without any problem), but is this considered a kind of DRM ?
(Sorry for all those questions but there is a lot that I really don't understand, and reading the FSF and GNU texts about those subjects don't help me solving this questions :S..)
I wasn't able to answer all of your questions, but I did my best. :)
> So if I understand right, this doesn't have anything to do with Databases and informations hold in them, it has only to do with the software that was created by the enterprise and that is used to communicate with the software right ?
Yes. What matters is what's running on your computer.
You can't control a computer somebody else owns. If someone else's computer creates a service, there is no harm in using it. Relying on somebody else's service could potentially be harmful though, because they could take it away from you.
For example, Ubuntu Forums uses vBulletin which is proprietary software. However, I am using Free Software to access it, so that's okay for me. However, they could take that service away from me at any time if they wanted to.
The other issue is the dodgy issue of contract law (terms of service) which /could/ potentially allow companies to hold data ransom via a TOS. However, these might only be enforceable if a company specifically makes the user accept the agreement (e.g. on sign-up). I don't know enough about contract law to be sure about this though, and it might depend on the country and governing law.
> I always wondering that because I already asked myself how can a Free
> Software company, sell free software and be sure that at least from
> their website, only those who pay could get it from the server (even
> knowing that outside everyone could share it without any problem), but
> is this considered a kind of DRM ?
It's not DRM if you make copies only to users who pay. It is DRM if you
restrict what can be done with these copies that users have.
You are confusing different problems and I do not really want to add more confusion. Let me just emphasize that, by definition, the *users* (not anybody) of a free software have access to its source code. Some specific licenses (e.g., the GPLv2) may set up some boring details about this has to be done but they usually are reasonable (even for the GPLv2 at the time when it was written, i.e., before Internet connections got popular). So, if you want to distribute free software but do not want to "publish" it (i.e., let it accessible to anybody), you can set up a non-anonymous FTP server, a Web site with authentication, you can answer request for the source code by sending a CD containing it, etc. The important point is that you cannot deny the users the access to the source code (and you cannot deny them the freedom to redistribute the software, modified or not).
So, paid work makes anybody a user after purchasing it, and free (as in free beer) work makes anybody a user when (well I would say he/she download the content but it is the same as just entering the website so...).
But what about the sources ? I know, understand, and respect the fact that they have to be given on demand, but is the "on-demand" part optional ? I mean, does it need to bee distributed after the user download (on the same page) or can it only be distributed if the user asked for it ? And if so can anyone regulate who can and can't have the source code just by asking (for example by asking the person the purchase approval) ?
I ask this because (for example) of the Android Market (aka Google Play: Sorry I am using android since the 1.0, and I'm an HTC Dream owner so I have a real problem using the new name xD), because I already saw applications that in order to respect the GPLv2 Licence they instead of uploading the application into the Android Market they only uploaded a package that would download them.
Thanks in Advance for all your answers really :D And sorry for all those boring questions.
> But what about the sources ? I know, understand, and respect the fact
> that they have to be given on demand, but is the "on-demand" part
> optional ? I mean, does it need to bee distributed after the user
> download (on the same page) or can it only be distributed if the user
> asked for it ? And if so can anyone regulate who can and can't have
> the source code just by asking (for example by asking the person the
> purchase approval) ?
You can read this in the GPL (v2 section 3 and v3 section 6). For GPL3
you can just offer a link to the source alongside the link to the
binary. Both versions allow giving users written offers for the source,
they might copy these and give them to other users with binaries.
> I ask this because (for example) of the Android Market (aka Google
> Play: Sorry I am using android since the 1.0, and I'm an HTC Dream
> owner so I have a real problem using the new name xD), because I
> already saw applications that in order to respect the GPLv2 Licence
> they instead of uploading the application into the Android Market they
> only uploaded a package that would download them.
Never used it, Fdroid has links to both apks and source tarballs.
Thank you for all the explanations :D
Btw, release still planned for October with a beta test:
http://blogs.valvesoftware.com/linux/beta-late-than-never-3/
You do not have to distribute the source code whenever you send a binary. You can simply send it whenever a user requests it (that is what "on-demand" means). For instance, many GNU/Linux distributions only have binaries of free software in their repositories. Yet, they have to provide the source code (or, simply, a link to it, although it may depend on the specifics of the license) if a user requests it. And yes, people not using the software are not entitled to get the source code (that is why I insisted that it a user's right and not anybody's right).
Totally different topic: since you own of an HTC Dream, do you know that you can change the default operating system for a 100% free one? It is called Replicant.
Here is a well known example: the Web. The Web follows a client-server architecture, i.e., a Web client (Abrowser, Internet Explorer, etc.) queries Web pages to a Web server (Apache, Microsoft's Internet Information Services, etc.) that, well, serves them. As you see the client and the server are separate programs. They can either be free, i.e., grants the four fundamental freedoms to their respective users (the guy behind the Web client and the guy owning the Web server), or not. Above, the first examples (between parentheses) are free software; the second ones are proprietary software. If you are browsing the Web and value your freedoms, you will use a free Web client (e.g., Abrowser) but do not care about the free/proprietary nature of the Web servers you query. Indeed, those Web servers do not do your computing. They do the computing of their owners who should care about using a free Web sever (e.g., Apache).
In this thread, we were talking about a protocol with one single implementation on the server side. There is no other choice (besides using another protocol). As a consequence, using a client (that can be free, i.e., respects the freedoms of the user on the client side) incites the installation of this unique server. If it happens to be proprietary, it harms the freedoms of who runs it.
[unintentional double post, is this ever going to be fixed?]
I'm not being a troll. I'm just saying that there needs to be free software for essentials and tools but when its related to art, there is a line that is drawn at times.
I know in the free software way of thought, I need not only source code to computer software, but art as well. I know there is copyright for art but even then there is the want for non copyrighted art to be used in content. Its the sharing menality where I am entitled to be able to deconstruct any movie, song, or painting even though I didn't create it. True there are youtube remixes of movie scenes and parodies, but the free software mentality wants and feels entitled to the entire film stock of a film.
Back on the gaming, yes the games are run as software. Its just that the software is the unnoticed backend where the visual medium takes focus and we are more concerned about consuming the art. I know I'm running a program when I boot up Firefox. When I boot up a game, I'm booting up an interactive experience.
So this is the big problem with games. We have free software games and games built on licenced proprietary engines like the Unreal engine. The free software games are produced in the free time of others (if they even get released) while the licensing of engines is a big business and sustains and could say grows the industry becuase a smaller game developer can concentrate on the content instead of building an engine from scratch each time.
I think the biggest problem is that even if game companies used a free software compatible engine in a game like Call of Duty, that they would be forced to release the source code for the game. If they license the game from Epic or whatever, their source code would be safe and have the insurance of customer support and tools. Can't get that from these libre game engines.
Thing is, while the assets of the game may be considered art (because they are), the source code to the game engine itself is the big problem here. There are games that are released under free software or open source licenses all the time. The example I'll be using here is Doom 3.
Doom 3's source code is released under the GNU GPL. People can clearly see how the game works and are able to modify it and fix any bugs that the game may have, or stuff like that. They don't make any money off of the GPL'd engine itself, but instead, the non-free assets.
The assets itself are a different story. They are not considered software, because they are actually art (graphics and sound).
So, only a part of games is considered art. The rest of it is considered software, just like any other piece of software.
Game companies could use a free software engine and still make money using non-free assets. However, most of them choose not to, and as such, most games are fully proprietary. If game companies chose to release the engine under a free software license while keeping the assets proprietary, that'd be a step forward in joining the free sofware movement.
Anyway, anybody who is using Trisquel or any other fully free distribution will not care about Steam. It's a proprietary platform meant to run fully proprietary games. The chances of Valve releasing the source code to both Steam and the Source engine under a free software license are nonexistant, and as such, they won't be included with fully free distributions of GNU/Linux.
[unintentional double post]
- Inicie sesión o regístrese para enviar comentarios