• noobnarski@feddit.de
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      9 months ago

      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.

      • lemmeee@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        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.

        • Communist@lemmy.ml
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          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.

          • lemmeee@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            edit-2
            8 months ago

            Then you don’t care about freedom and having control over your computer. That’s a shame. I think you should.

            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?

            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.

            You can’t win everything, steam is never going to stop being proprietary

            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.

            The issue is not as black and white as you’re making it seem.

            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.

            Plus if steam wins, getting people to switch to fully open source operating systems will be a lot easier.

            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.

            • Communist@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              8 months ago

              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

              • lemmeee@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                8 months ago

                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.

                • Communist@lemmy.ml
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  edit-2
                  8 months ago

                  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

                  • lemmeee@sh.itjust.works
                    link
                    fedilink
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    8 months ago

                    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.

                    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.

                    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.

                    If they wanted to, why would they not use BSD?

                    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.