416
Valve made the right decision
(lemmy.world)
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 09 Apr 2024
416 points (89.7% liked)
linuxmemes
20707 readers
991 users here now
I use Arch btw
Sister communities:
- LemmyMemes: Memes
- LemmyShitpost: Anything and everything goes.
- RISA: Star Trek memes and shitposts
Community rules
- Follow the site-wide rules and code of conduct
- Be civil
- Post Linux-related content
- No recent reposts
Please report posts and comments that break these rules!
founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
How does Valve prevent you from controlling your own device? Their version of Linux isn't locked down, you can fully customize it like any Linux afaik.
Their system (and the Steam client) is proprietary, which means you can't easily see what the software does or change it. If you can't control the software then you don't control the device. People deserve to have the 4 essential freedoms. This is why Windows is bad and it's the same with SteamOS.
SteamOS is only bad when you expect it to support a variety of hardware. They promised to release it as a standalone and it's still not there yet, too bad.
You are correct about Steam client though. Even if they keep the internals closed, the GUI part alone would be worth forking. I wish a chrome-less version would exist.
Steam Deck is a computer, so its users deserve to have full control over it just like their PC or smartphone.
If people can't easily modify it, then its developers have power over users. You have to trust that they will not abuse that power, but they already do - with DRM for example.
You can install whatever you want on a Steam Deck afaik, so I dont get what you are trying to say here.
That SteamOS is unethical, similar to Windows.
Then you can just install something else on it?
I get that it sucks when a device is locked, because you might need to install a different OS for a multitude of reasons, but as long as you are able to install whatever you want I dont blame the manufacturer.
You don't have to use SteamOS and you don't have to use Windows, but that doesn't change the fact that they are unethical operating systems designed to take away user's freedom. You can't easily know what it does on your device or change it. It keeps secrets from you. Steam also restricts you with DRM. So unless you are fine with Valve becoming another Microsoft, we need to criticize them for doing this.
I'm okay with valve replacing microsoft as the go-to proprietary operating system
You have to recognize that having an open source almost everything except a single program (steam) is better than what windows is doing by miles, right?
You can't win everything, steam is never going to stop being proprietary, but steam will cause open source to flourish with the caveat that it itself is not open source. The issue is not as black and white as you're making it seem.
Plus if steam wins, getting people to switch to fully open source operating systems will be a lot easier.
Then you don't care about freedom and having control over your computer. That's a shame. I think you should.
But is that actually true? There is no source code for SteamOS 3. How do you know how many packages are proprietary? Even one nonfree package is unethical. People deserve to have control over their computers, I don't care if it's currently a little better than Windows.
This is irrelevant. We should still try to make the world better and fight the injustice. If gamers realized this 10 years ago, maybe we would have this problem solved by now.
You can't have freedom when someone is actively trying to take it away from you. We have to get rid of proprietary software. If we accept the abuse from those companies, nothing will change. We've been fighting this battle for 40 years now. Those companies want to give you an illusion of freedom, so that they can pretend that they are good. They are using the work of Free Software volunteers to build a prison for you.
No, there is no Free Software alternative to Steam and there is no reason to believe that Valve will release its source code.
You are making an assumption that Valve won't make their system even more proprietary. But why wouldn't they if their fans are ok with this? They're already abusing their power with Steam. Giving them more power will only make the abuse worse.
I do care about this, I just believe your path will move nothing at all whereas valve is making linux a viable option and contributing to open source immensely, their client is built on completely free software and you can easily uninstall it, they can't fork linux and gnu or any of their drivers to make it proprietary so I don't know what you're worried about
This path has lead us to where we are today, which is why companies want to blur the line between free and nonfree software, because it's the only way they can slow down the progress of our movement. Microsoft also contributes to "Open Source" and that's great, but they also abuse their users, which wrong. It's similar with Valve. The Steam client is proprietary. Sure, you can remove it, just like you can remove Windows from a computer too, but that doesn't make Windows ethical. Linux is already proprietary by default - it contains binary blobs without source code. So Arch is already a nonfree OS, Valve is just making it even more proprietary. I see a lot of people falling for the same traps over and over again and I'm worried that the majority of us will never learn to avoid them.
Do you not understand that the GPL has made it so that valve can't do that?
To be concerned about what you're concerned about, valve would have to violate the GPL
Valve puts one piece of commercial software on a completely FOSS operating system, this is nothing like windows, and i'm sorry but you sound delusional. Why would valve make more of the OS proprietary than steam? How could they? If they wanted to, why would they not use BSD?
also you can check with pacman -Q
Since the OS comes with Steam, clearly having some GPL licensed packages doesn't prevent them from adding proprietary packages and not all software is GPL licensed. Also Android and SailfishOS exist and both are proprietary.
There is nothing wrong with commercial software. The issue is with proprietary software, because it takes away user's freedom. Free Software can be commercial too. It doesn't matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary. Google Chrome is not Free Software just because it's based on Chromium, which is a Free Software project. Android is based on Free Software and it's also proprietary. Their goal is to blur the line and it's clearly working. I'm not denying that SteamOS is more free than Windows, but it's still bad and since they can get away with this, I suspect it will keep getting worse just like other proprietary operating systems.
This is irrelevant. They chose whatever was the most convenient and the cheapest. Companies use Free Software projects to make proprietary software all the time. Valve at least contributes to projects, but they abuse their users by denying them freedom and that's the main issue.
...again, why would they? They've thrown all these resources into helping foss, why would they perform a massive duplication of effort and create more than steam? What could the possible benefit be? I don't see any incentive whatsoever to do that. If you don't like steam you uninstall it and enjoy all the benefits that valve is giving us.
I'm aware of this, I'm just completely unaware of what malicious thing you're implying valve will possibly do, other than make steam itself worse, which, again, if you don't like steam, you'll still be reaping massive benefits, they're paying many full time developers to do literally nothing but make linux better. Steamos is not worth taking issue with, STEAM ITSELF is where you should point your attention.
In the same way I wouldn't worry if somebody made a version of debian with google chrome preinstalled, I'm not worried about steamos. It's worse for freedom, if you use that version of debian, but pragmatically, how much does this matter? All you need steam for is to play video games, you uninstall steam and then steamos is literally just immutable arch linux.
This isn't an android-like situation even remotely, android simply uses the linux kernel, valve uses full desktop FOSS linux.
Why do companies make proprietary software and operating systems at all? Because they think it will make them the most money. Why is Steam proprietary? Why is Valve keeping secrets from their users? They could do the ethical thing and make it Free Software.
Making proprietary software is already unethical by itself, because users can't control it. They already do other malicious things like restrict their users with DRM. I'm glad that Valve, Microsoft and other companies contribute to Free Software. They deserve to be praised for this, but it shouldn't distract us from the evil things they do, which we should criticize. Why can't we praise Valve for the good things and criticize them for the bad things?
Steam is part of SteamOS, so I criticize both.
For me personally it doesn't matter, because I will never use such system. But I want other people to have freedom, I want to live in a free society. For that to happen we must destroy proprietary software, not include it in our distros and pretend that nothing is wrong. I don't want to see people spied on, restricted by DRM and abused in other ways. That's wrong, so we have to talk about it and show people that it doesn't have to be like this.
Steam is proprietary because they want to make money, they aren't making the operating system from scratch, their goal is to sell stuff on the steam store. Why are they using linux instead of BSD for this, if you think that they have some other scheme? I'm against proprietary software, but the fact is, this extremely optional proprietary software for exclusively gaming is the reason linux is going to get users, a shitload of work done, and will be a usable operating system for anyone. If you don't like steam, just don't install it, and no proprietary software will hurt you, and you won't ever need to install it.
Because you're criticising them for steamos, which is not proprietary, except for the steam client itself. Criticise the steam client, not steamos.
Steam is a single piece of software put upon a completely FOSS operating system, steamos is just immutable arch linux. You can even uninstall steam.
They do have freedom, they can easily uninstall steam, and steam doesn't have control over their system because the entire operating system is FOSS, they just have the steam client, which is a completely optional extension and can't be used for harm when it's closed. It being proprietary is undoubtedly a bad thing, but that doesn't make steamos bad, that just makes steam itself bad.
If your goal is to get as many people using as much FOSS software as possible, steam is your ally. It's what's getting people to switch to linux in huge numbers, it will push open source forward, not backwards. Your thinking is far too black and white. If steam didn't exist, and all these developers weren't working on linux, I wouldn't even be a linux user, and MANY MANY others would never consider using linux. Because of valves work, linux is usable for an entire massive additional group of people. The same is not even a little true for, say, microsoft, who only help linux in a way that doesn't harm windows.
My point is that Steam doesn't have to be proprietary. You can make money in an ethical way with Free Software. Itch.io does this by providing a Free Software client. There is no excuse for making nonfree software. I don't know why they didn't use BSD like Sony did, but it really doesn't matter.
If something contains proprietary software, then it's proprietary. I know that you can turn SteamOS into a Free Software system. At the very least you would have to remove Steam (this is easy), use a Linux kernel without proprietary blobs (might be harder, but Arch has the same issue) and maybe some other things (I don't know about the drivers). It's nice that this is possible, but it's still proprietary by default and that is wrong.
My priority is not for GNU/Linux (or any other particular OS) to get the most users. It's not the goal of the Free Software movement. The goal is for people to use Free Software and for proprietary software to be destroyed. Valve makes proprietary software, so they are working against us. If your goal is for people to have freedom and control over their devices, you should criticize those actions too. You can do that, while also praising Valve for the good things that they do. Maybe Valve can change and become better, but if not then at least people should be aware of the situation. If you are against proprietary software, then you should understand that Steam being proprietary is bad for us. But maybe you care about features more than freedom - then we probably won't agree on this.
I want people to eventually use fully free systems. It can be a gradual process, but this won't happen if we don't make our end goal clear to people. Companies that make nonfree software won't do this - they use the term Open Source to avoid talking about freedom and avoid mentioning that proprietary software is bad. So we have to do this ourselves. You can you Steam and SteamOS if you want and at the same time tell people that we can do better than that. That's all you have to do - just accept that they current situation isn't perfect and that we can work on improving it.
I do criticize those things, my goal is to get as many people using free software as possible, valves work with steam has enabled that, also, you say the goal is to get as many people to use free software as possible while saying the goal isn't number of users, that's a contradiction.
i don't have a problem criticizing steam for being proprietary, I just recognize that steam is massively beneficial to FOSS and from a pragmatic standpoint they are nothing like and will never become nearly as big of a problem as windows
My goal isn't to increase the number of GNU/Linux users at all cost. I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it, unless it's only a temporary solution for them. If people stop using one proprietary platform only to be trapped in another without realizing it, then something went wrong. Some people ditch Android only to use SailfishOS. Or they ditch Twitter only to use Threads. So I hope those new GNU/Linux users who know nothing about the Free Software movement don't get trapped again.
Steam is an unethical DRM platform, so I will always criticize it regardless if it makes people switch to GNU/Linux.
You're still not listening to me, or yourself, really.
Neither is mine, the cost is extremely minor in this case, because steam is a gaming client, and the fundamental nature of a gaming client is non-essential and not integrated into the system deeply at all. What you fail to understand is people being on windows is way worse in every single way than them having one proprietary app on their computer.
There's no situation where one more person switching to steamos isn't switching from windows where they were also using steam, this means every single person that steam converts is a massive net positive. Do you see how that is not "at all costs" at all?
There is huge benefit, more people are using much more FOSS, and the fact is, if more people were on linux, there'd be more foss software, which means better alternatives and outcompeting proprietary software.
Steam ain't that. It's video games. And nothing else.
Steam isn't going to be what "traps" them or anything, especially when it's sandboxed, and when you sandbox it, it has literally no integration with the rest of your system at all. This is a massive win over using windows. Which anybody who is switching to steamos is certainly already on and wouldn't switch to linux without it under any circumstances.
You could use this excuse to justify almost any type of proprietary software. Most apps are not deeply integrated into the system. That doesn't make them ethical.
It is more free than Windows and I never said otherwise. I just said that it was still unethical.
But those people don't care about their freedom. That's the problem. They will always use proprietary software, because they only care about convenience or features. We need to change that. Only then our movement will benefit from this. We can't let them get attached to Valve as long as they make proprietary software.
Games are software. If you can't control what they do on your device, then you don't control the device.
You are assuming that a company that makes proprietary software won't try to get more power over their users. Why wouldn't they? Their users don't even care. Sandboxing improves your security (which is good), but not your freedom. You still can't see what the software does or change it, so that program is still unethical.
I'm using that excuse to justify steamos vs windows, you're assuming a vacuum, I do believe proprietary software is bad, just that you're fighting the wrong battle.
"I see very little benefit from people using GNU/Linux if they will use proprietary software on it"
"It doesn’t matter how many nonfree packages it has, because even one package makes the whole thing proprietary."
The entire time my point has been steamos isn't worth criticising because it's just archlinux with steam, criticize steam. I'm totally fine with criticising steam, i'm not fine with criticising steamos, because it is literally just linux but with steam preinstalled. All of your issues are simply issues with steam, not steamos.
That won't change, they simply do not have the same values as you, so, be pragmatic and try to make FOSS software outcompete proprietary software, in this case, we need steam, we need people to move to linux as much as possible, and only once we have everyone on FOSS operating systems, THEN we attack the clients, that should be the order of operations. Steam is absolutely still bad because it's proprietary but steamos is a good thing for the free software movement.
I'm not saying they wouldn't, i'm saying they've structured things in a way that they literally cannot, there's no path to do that for them, that's why if they wanted to do that they would've HAD to use BSD, there is no choice for them in the matter because this is based on linux.
Here is an article from the FSF explaining why we should avoid making such compromises: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/compromise.html . They probably explain this a lot better than me, so if it doesn't convince you, then probably nothing will.
You have full freedom to install Windows, SteamOS, or even Temple OS on your Steam Deck if you so fancy.
That does not make SteamOS or Windows an ethical OS.
Can you explain what parts of SteamOS are not controllable in a way that makes it more restricted than Arch, which it is based on?
[If the account owns the game - allow user to download and run the game] is a DRM sure... But it's kind of fair, no?
Valve won't release the source code and I don't use it, so it's hard for me to tell which packages are proprietary and which are not. Steam client for sure is proprietary and it comes with the OS. Arch by default is Free Software (other than proprietary blobs in the kernel) and you can audit what each program does and modify it. With SteamOS you can't do that, because Valve keeps secrets from you on your own device.
To play any game you have to install and run the proprietary Steam client and be logged in to an account. Even to play singleplayer games. Even if you bought a physical disc. There are stores that don't do this: gog.com and itch.io. They provide an optional client for convenience, but you can just download a game's installer from the website and install it on any PC any time you want. In case of Itch the client is Free Software so anyone can see what it does and modify it.
That doesn't mean you can't control how it works. Most people don't need sources of their Linux distros to use them as they want. It would be cool to have the source, but you wouldn't expect them to have an official maintained repo since they spend much more resources on actual hardware that needs this distro.
Yeah it seems to also be the only thing that is proprietary in SteamOS too.
Are you clueless or what? There are too many ways to do what you want with SteamOS. You can use offline mode, desktop mode, play pirated games in any mode, install any controller software you like. Finally, install another Linux distro on it, or Windows. But people buy Deck because of SteamOS mostly since it creates the intended (and expected) experience.
Wanna know why we aren't seeing many enthusiasts creating more handheld frontends for platforms like Deck? Yeah, not at all because the platform is locked behind DRM or other bs. But because the best experience most people expect is already available and it becomes better with updates.
You can't easily make changes to a program without the source code or even check what it does. Most people are not programmers, so others study the code and make the necessary changes for them.
This is not an excuse. What they are doing is unethical. They put themselves in a position of power over their users. Not much different from Microsoft or Apple.
I don't know if that's true. But the Linux kernel is proprietary as well (just like the one in Arch) - it contains binary blobs without the source code.
I was explaining to you how DRM works and why it's wrong, since apparently you have no idea. I don't know why you are listing features that any popular desktop operating system has (even Windows). SteamOS is still proprietary, which makes it unethical.
If you buy a Windows laptop, you can install any operating system on it too. That doesn't make Windows ethical.
99% users won't ever need that. For cases when they do, they can find guides, modify settings or install software that does what they want.
People don't need an excuse. They play their games and that's it.
Any distro you download can do this exact thing and you wouldn't know for a long period, unless you spend enough time to compile the whole thing yourself, compare and research.
I consider myself knowledgeable but you surely chose a wrong example to teach people about DRM. Try some denuvo or eac maybe.
Whatever that means, users don't care about it. Compared to others, Valve provides a lot more value in most of their solutions. They are hackable just enough to satisfy most enthusiasts.
You could make the same excuse for Windows.
You don't have to compile to know this. You can find the list of fully free distros here: https://www.gnu.org/distros/free-distros.html . Debian removes those blobs too, but it's not on that list for other reasons.
That's DRM too and there are many more examples. Blu-ray also contains DRM. And so do most PC games thanks to Valve. Console games on the other hand usually don't have DRM when you buy a physical copy.
I know that most people don't care about their freedom, privacy or security. Most people use Windows. But this doesn't stop us from trying to build a better world for ourselves and to try to convince others to care.
The distros being removed from this list mostly by requests from maintainers means it's not actively monitored or researched at all. So by not verifying it you put yourself on a mercy of other people. It will fail, if not already.
That's because you have to use consoles to even read them. They contain hardware DRM and are far from being ethical.
Am I missing something or you're thinking that starting with least offenders is a good idea?
What are you talking about? It's a list made by the Free Software Foundation. What was removed? If some information is incorrect, you should be able to prove it.
I don't know what hardware DRM means, but they use proprietary software, so you are right that they are unethical. I never said they were.
I don't know what you mean.
Check the Historical section.
It means hardware modules like chips containing the code that you'll have to do a lot of work to even dump, before trying to interpret and make use of it. Physical games also mostly use storage that degrades over time and I consider it another form of DRM.
Why do you bash Valve but not any other company like Apple, Nvidia etc?
Those distros are just not being developed anymore, so they are no longer recommended.
I do. I will never buy anything from those companies.
If they would actively monitor all listed distros they wouldn't need to be messaged by maintainers for a distro to get delisted. This means they don't do monitoring. Someone just compiled a list and called it recommendations. It doesn't seem to add anything to the whole process of making sure that public downloads contain only ethical code, if there is even such a thing.
Your comment history doesn't show that. Only a couple of comments about Nvidia, no real thoughts about Apple. But you made at least 2 posts about Valve and oh boy some of your takes on them show you don't really understand what you're talking about.