this post was submitted on 09 Mar 2024
-42 points (20.8% liked)
GNU+Linux Humor
4888 readers
1 users here now
Memes, jokes and general humor about GNU+Linux
Rules:
- Posts must be relevant to GNU+Linux or at least an open source unix-like operating system
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
OP is somewhat correct, but still "short-sighted" with a misleading conclusion. All these valid downsides should be mentioned, but as always there are pros and cons to everything, and in Valve's case, the pros still outweigh the cons, and you always have to weigh pros and cons against each other.
Valve has done a lot in the last ~10 years to push desktop Linux for mainstream gaming viability and several other features as well (open source shader compiler, Direct3D-to-Vulkan translation stuff, HDR support in KDE Plasma, lots of improvements for the open source AMD GPU drivers, and much more stuff). You can't simply disregard that. Sure, there are lots of companies involved in improving Linux - but it's mostly for the server side or the enterprise desktop segment. Almost no big company invests meaningful amount of resources into improving the common Linux desktop significantly and challenging Windows' dominance for home entertainment/gaming, read: the casual home user. Valve did just that, of course also mostly for their own reasons, but their own reasons still do benefit general desktop Linux massively, and they are almost alone in doing so. And I probably don't have to mention that having a rich company investing lots of money into pushing stuff does really help development speed. The development pace of the Linux kernel for example is only so high because many big corps spend developers and resources on it to improve it for their own data center use cases. Almost no one (again, except Valve) pours any significant amount of resources/devs into the desktop Linux ecosystem and drivers so far.
Look at GOG - in theory a shining example of how to do several things better than Valve (no DRM, etc.), but they still do close to nothing for desktop Linux, probably because they lack the resources or see it as a wasted effort overall. Like many companies do -- the typical chicken-egg-problem. Linux won't be better supported by companies until its market share grows, but its market share won't grow until it is better supported by companies. The GOG Galaxy client probably still has no Linux version. That's just how things have been for a long time and I'm glad to have Valve really be serious about it and demonstrate it publicly that this can work and that this is an example for other companies to also look at it. Their exact reasons or methods don't even matter - we need companies pushing desktop Linux, or otherwise you can still sit in a corner and cry about Windows' dominance in 2050 still because nothing really changes on a fundamental level fast enough. Which is why I see it as important to be favorable to Valve for doing this when no one else is doing it. If you want things to change, then do support changes that meaningfully contribute to Windows losing exclusive market share in certain areas like gaming, and tons of people will migrate away from Windows over time because they will start seeing Linux as a viable, practical alternative, not just a theoretical thing. Sure, always be mindful of any disadvantages. But please don't act as if there weren't any major advantages as well.
Be glad for how things are developing currently. It could always be better, sure. But it could also be massively worse. And it has been massively worse for a long time. It's high time to change, and desktop Linux needs all the help it can get to become mainstream. It's on its way there, thankfully, but that way hasn't been so clear all the time. Desktop Linux share has always been sub-1% for many, many years. Only very recently it made significant strides forward.
I wasn't disregarding Valve's contributions to free software. I'm glad to hear that they have contributed so much and I would like to read more about them if you have the links. They deserve to be praised for that, but it doesn't cancel out all the bad things that they've been doing for many years. Microsoft (for example) contributes to free software too, but at the same time they take away their user's freedom. Valve deserves criticism for this just like Microsoft deserves criticism for the unethical things that they are doing. It's awesome that Valve is contributing to a good cause in the last few years, but look how much freedom they have taken away from us.
It seems very important to you that people use GNU/Linux, but if they will be using Steam and other proprietary software, how is that better than them using Windows? They still won't be able to control their own computers, so what's the point? The goal isn't to have people leave one proprietary ecosystem to become trapped in another. The goal is for them to have freedom. I want to live in a free society. The only way to make that happen is to destroy proprietary software. So as long as Valve makes non free software and takes away their user's freedom with DRM, they are our enemy. Just like Microsoft, Apple, Google and any other company that does the same.
It seems that your goal is to have the most features, but the goal of GNU/Linux and the free software movement is to have freedom - something that Valve doesn't want their users to have.
PS
GOG's client is proprietary, which is terrible, but at least it's not required and there is a libre alternative - Heroic Games Launcher (it works on GNU/Linux too).
https://piped.video/watch?v=KW6E51xXcWc for Valve's contributions, by a KDE dev. According to a 2022 interview they pay over 100 open source developers working full-time on various important open source projects, from Mesa to Vulkan to AMD GPU drivers to KDE Plasma to gamescope to Wine to DXVK and VKD3D to you name it. The whole desktop ecosystem is benefitting from this, not just the Steam Deck, and not just gaming.
I get that proprietary software and DRM is a general problem, and Steam is part of that problem, but completely getting rid of that is simply a battle for another time, further in the future. The first battle is to get Windows users abandon their Microsoft/Apple cages, and that's a win that's actually within reach now. Windows also becomes worse by itself, further accelerating the change. That's important, because running a proprietary OS is still much worse than running some proprietary applications or games on a free OS. A closed OS completely shifts control away from the user, leaving only what the developer allows you to do, and it allows the dev to always push his or her agenda by favoring applications from the same developer, and allowing the developer to establish proprietary APIs and libraries like DirectX which was problematic for the competition for quite some time. Establishing Linux as a neutral, user-controlled, non-proprietary, much more trustworthy OS is the first step away from that. And to reach that, users will have to be able to run at least some of their usual applications or games on Linux as well. Otherwise they simply wouldn't switch in the first place. For a regular user, using Linux cannot feel like being a downgrade. A regular user does not understand the ethics behind closed and open source and will never choose a worse free option over a better proprietary one. That either means the free options must become true rivals, or - which is the easier goal for now - the proprietary apps have to run on Linux just as well as people are used to.
A "war" isn't being won all at once instantly, but by winning several smaller battles after one another. Which takes time.
The free software movement was started 40 years ago. We can't just give up now. How many years should we wait? People are only becoming more dependent on computers and our problems keep getting worse. Windows users have been able to abandon it many years ago, but they don't care about freedom.
I had the same feeling about 10 years ago, but users of proprietary software are willing to take a lot of abuse. It's almost impressive how stubborn they are. This includes users of Reddit, Twitter, Apple and others. I don't think Microsoft will lose any significant amount of users just by abusing them more, and when it comes to features, Windows is improving lately.
I agree that more freedom is better, but if people don't understand the end goal, they will keep making the same mistakes. SteamOS is proprietary. Most of the popular GNU/Linux distros have proprietary software in their repositories. On mobile I see people switching from proprietary Android to proprietary Sailfish OS. They just keep falling in the same traps over and over again. Steam is one of those traps. If GNU/Linux became mainstream on desktop today, I have no doubt that it would be a proprietary distro. Then it will be only a matter of time before it turns into something even more proprietary like Windows. Because why wouldn't it?
That's why we must explain it to them. Some will listen and others will not, but there is nothing else we can do. We are doing our best to rival the proprietary apps, but it's a battle we've been fighting for 40 years. There will always be something missing and even if there isn't, it will always be inconvenient to switch from something you already know. Reddit users could switch to Lemmy, but they won't. If at some point they decide to switch to some other proprietary alternative, that will not fix their problem. It will be only a matter of time before the other company or developer starts abusing them too.
I know, but if we make compromises on our freedom, we will never keep it. The companies that make proprietary software will not let us. They could make money from developing libre software instead, but they don't have to, because our society thinks non free software is fine.
It's not about giving up. It's about continuing the fight while also making sure that people have real, tangible alternatives in the meantime. Look at GNU/Hurd - it might just as well never grow into something useful or competitive. Don't put all your eggs in one basket. The first "goal" is to get rid of Windows, and Windows is for the first time in like 30 years losing one of its pillars (gaming) to Linux (and by extension also MacOS, because every non-Windows OS profits from the developments). It doesn't matter if the overall situation isn't perfect. It's still real, tangible progress. Also the market share jump from < 1% (since pretty much forever) to 4% recently.
Not by itself maybe, but in combination with Linux becoming more mainstream-viable for sure. I've heard from so many long-time Windows users lately that they're considering switching to Linux in the near future. I don't think Windows is in it for long, except on business desktops because they're usually vendor-locked-in with special applications. Maybe a generation after that, when home users aren't all guaranteed familiar with Windows anymore as they are today. I also don't think people will take much more abuse, the EU is also pushing back hard against abusive US companies. Also, if the AI copilot stuff blows up or doesn't become popular enough, Microsoft will have put all their eggs in one basket in vain. Currently it seems more like a very expensive gimmick - who needs an AI admin copilot to clean up the trash bin, change font size or toggle dark mode? Sure, you'll be able to talk to your bot, but everything you do will be harvested and the gain you get from it is almost irrelevant. Maybe if you have a disability or so it could be cool.
I don't think it would. It would be a mixture of libre software and propirietary software, which is better than 100% proprietary software still. The most important component is the OS itself.
Yes, we must continue advocating for libre software. However, it's still time to celebrate the beginning of the end of Windows.
We will keep enough freedom. It's a gradient. The world isn't black and white. Playing a proprietary game or playing back a BluRay on an otherwise fully free system is still much more progress than running 100% proprietary sofware. Change also won't come in a perfect way. First, desktop Linux needs to fight back on equal footing against Windows, and that (unfortunately) means it needs to be able to run whatever proprietary apps or games the users still need. Because otherwise they wouldn't switch and your utopia would remain an utopia without any measurable progress towards it.
People deserve to be able to control their own devices, but you are saying that we should be happy if they can get only some control? Having to run even one program that you can't control is bad. So I see no reason why I should be happy with that. I see no reason why we should lower our standards and let somebody get away with doing unethical things to us. We can do much better than that. Hurd is irrelevant and we don't need it. We certainly don't need to let Valve abuse us.
You are right that the world isn't black and white, but proprietary software and libre software are incompatible ideas. You can't have freedom when someone is actively trying to take it away from you. Developers of proprietary software are our enemies and we can't support them. If we let developers have power over us, they will abuse it. It's been happening for decades and it will never stop. We need to work on making our society less dependent on non free software, not find ways to sustain our dependence. If you want to run a proprietary game on your system that's your choice, but we don't have to pretend that the developer of that game isn't doing something unethical and that there isn't an ethical way.
Yes, but it's not good enough by itself. It's nice that Windows users can now uninstall Edge or whatever, but it's only in EU and that's just one of many terrible things Microsoft has been doing to their users. It is a small improvement and I'm glad they are doing something (other than spending lots of money on funding free software projects every year), but the law is not enough.
But you are not just proposing a journey to freedom. You are proposing that we should accept proprietary software and praise companies that develop it, because it will somehow give us more freedom in the future. You want us to support the same type of abuse that we need to get away from.