Stallman: Valve's Linux games "unethical" but might boost OS usage

Ok, not free free, just including source code. Sooo again, valve decides to expand its services to the linux community even though its just a tiny fraction of the os market, and because of this linux users start bashing them for not giving them the game's source code for free too? Just be happy a company with valve's resources are taking notice of linux. Baby steps.

Man does this guy sound like the classic Hippy image!! just put a text bubble in this pic wit "Its a conspiracy Man"

I like open source its a good thing but no sane videogame studio is going to give something for free WITH open source so some guy can make a repop of the game for 1 second if the source code is open multiplayer gaming will just die in these games theres already tons of hack(aim bot,invulnerability ect) made immagine if the had the source code to get all the exploits!!!

He should be saying wow thanks valve for trying to bring Linux into the gaming world

That beard is unethical...

Seriously. How many children has he frightened just by smiling at them?

Yeah, odds are those fanboys are *****s that don't they what they're talking about, have probably only used some recent, accessible distro like Ubuntu, probably still dual boot, never contributed code in their life, and only started using Linux in the last ten years or so. Yet those are the kind of people going around ranting about how great Linux is and how Windows sucks, etc. etc. as they're some authority on the subject.

Stallman, on the other hand, actually is an authority on the subject, and his views (which I don't applaud or anything) are totally at odds with the fanboys that think Linux should be more widespread.

Why should he be doing that? Stallman's aim isn't to bring Linux to the gaming world, its to create an operating system environment where every piece of software is open source (which is what he means when he uses the word "free"), so what Valve is doing is actually pretty contrary to what he wants. It's not an aim I share or anything, but it was that aim that caused Linux (or GNU/Linux is you want to get pedantic) to exist in the first place.

Oops wrong attribution for that quote.

I happen to love Linux, and am delighted that Steam is bringing so much potential to the platform (I've been vocally wishing for a Linux-based gaming system for a decade now)...

But seriously, these "everything has to be free" cyber-hippies like Stallman tend to be more of a negative factor than positive when it comes to promoting Linux adoption (at least, in my estimation). To me, it's more unethical to just assume that anything to do with Linux has to be totally free and open, publicly chastise anything that isn't free, and yet lament how Linux is not being adopted. Well, maybe it's more crazy than unethical, really. If there is no possible revenue stream options on a platform that will help guarantee recouping your development costs (and profit to keep yourself in business), there is no incentive to support that platform. Period. Not many people want to be inundated with advertisements constantly to achieve "freedom." And you can't rely on people actually donating when they have a choice, cause most of us are cheap bastards

I agree with Vrmithrax 100%.

You want free stuff in a world that bleeds you dry, you implement something like The Venus Project and you might get your wish, but until then, no mass adoption of anything happens in this world without some means to control the generated revenue.

Obviously no one (even pro-Linux devs) is gonna give away AAA titles for free, open-source or not. However, I'd like to point out that in today's gaming world, only a fraction of released games are actually moddable, where the developer actually releases tools to do so. Valve's Source titles are all highly moddable, which is something that should appeal to the Linux community and in my eyes, it deserves to be available on Linux.

You know what freedom I'm concerned about? The freedom from Microsoft I might gain when Steam is fully functional on Ubuntu.

Stallman can crow and trumpet all he wants, but nothing Valve is doing is encroaching upon my rights or freedoms in any way. I am still free to make my own choice about whether or not to give up my freedoms to a certain software program. I am free to decide what, and when, to install anything on my computer.

Since I enjoy playing games, I buy them to support the company that develops them and follow their rules when playing. If I wasn't comfortable with that, I'm free to keep my wallet closed and my hard drive spacious.

Only good can come out of a company like Valve taking on this kind of side project. As more people take an interest in Linux, it has more of an opportunity to be a serious competitor with Microsoft and that kind of competition creates jobs for people. Look at what Ubuntu has already become, and think of what it can now achieve with Valve throwing in with them.

It's a good thing.

It s good for linux. It might help develop drivers for linux for the long run and new hardware get easy to adopt.

Unethical? Yeah an operating system that is free enterprise and games for it is unethical. Yap. But microsoft charging 100 in europe for windows and 400 in america and giving it away in africa where nigerian scam artists use it to scam people. That makes the planets most ethical practice and the most ethical company on the planet. A company that is hired by apple to write them software and stole the whole gui environment and became the biggest competitor of the one that hired them and them point the finger back that hey you stole it from xerox. Let me see pirates of silicon valley chasing software pirates. So any one who even wants to point out anything unethical should start pointing the finger inside a mirror at the biggest looser on the planet. For in the mirror you will always find the biggest losers.

You certainly seem passionate, but what does this have to do with the article?

Isn't this the same guy who made a tutorial on how to make a foil hat?

I created a FREE game for Windows about 13 years ago, and have kept it up to date ever since. It started on DOS, and now runs on Windows 8. It has been donation only, no restrictions, totally free and I have responded to requests to add features to it as they came in, improving it more. It has been downloaded on one website I visited over 2 million times and was downloaded 6000 times last month alone. To date I have received $275 in donations. People are cheap. There is no way you're going to see commercial software that costs huge sums of money and time to develop given away for free with source, time to pull your head out of the clouds and get real. I have often thought of switching to Linux and after I got a look at Windows 8, I was thinking even more of switching to Linux, but as a software developer I know that I better find a new way to make money because it certainly won't be from selling software to Linux users. And I'll be damned if anyone thinks I'll add advertising to anything I create. I personally would rather pay for software than get it filled with ads.

The Venus Project

What happened to the idea of simply charging for it?

Nothing says you can't charge for "free software", in this case, free is meant as in the freedom to use the software how you want, the freedom to change it. Free software is not the same as freeware, at least not in the context of open source.

I think the real point here is what's going on behind the scenes. It really shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone that Microsoft is planning to kill the desktop "as we know it" as there simply isn't enough consumer demand as compared to the newer more efficient mobile units that are vastly available today in almost any flavor. Let's face it, teenagers and children really do not require the latest and greatest iPad or iPhone as those products are mainly aimed at business consumers and as legend precedes us all, we just "have to have it". Now, we all know or may not know that Linux hasn't been the most favored OS in the past decades for the "average" user today. However, it is solid and for the most part completely stable and deserves it's place on the throne as the world's most widely used "desktop" OS while Apple and Microsoft battle it out over who's got the biggest balls in the mobile market. PC gaming will never die and the desktop surely has it's place for decades to come. To "kill" the desktop is to say, only "the way we know it today" but it's here to stay! JM2C