Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted

GNU founder Stallman calls DRM’d Steam for Linux games "unethical" « Ars Technica

 

RMS says Steam for Linux is better than Steam for Windows, but not by much.

The Linux desktop has historically been ignored by major commercial software developers due to the relatively small audience and technical issues like fragmentation. Steam’s arrival on Linux has largely been welcomed by Linux enthusiasts who recognize it as a big step towards legitimizing the Linux desktop as a consumer platform.

 

But the prospect of the open source operating system attracting a rich ecosystem of proprietary DRM-encumbered computer games raises questions for some. Richard Stallman, the founder of GNU and the Free Software foundation, has issued a statement outlining what he views as the positive and negative consequences of this development.

 

In his statement, he says that closed-source games are “unethical because they deny freedom to their users.” But he also believes that users are “better off” running them on an open Linux-based platform rather than Windows.

 

“This development can do both harm and good. It might encourage GNU/Linux users to install these games, and it might encourage users of the games to replace Windows with GNU/Linux,” he wrote. “My guess is that the direct good effect will be bigger than the direct harm. But there is also an indirect effect: what does the use of these games teach people in our community?”

 

He remains concerned that the availability of commercial games will detract from the message of freedom that is advanced by GNU and the free software movement. Success, he says, is not about popularity—it’s about freeing users from the kind of technical restrictions that DRM represents.

Posted
Surely 6 year old WindowsVista and 3 year old Windows7 are disasters in business, rather than an operating system that isn't even available yet?

 

In what way? They aren't really the biggest of leaps forward from XP. Unless you have some old legacy software or some really picky bespoke apps you shouldn't experience many ills changing up from XP. Any problems you do experience are manageable.

 

MetroUI and no start button in "classic desktop mode" is less manageable. I'm aware you can set it to boot into desktop by default, but the lack of proper start button and the instance of MetroUI on business desktops - that's disastrous!

Posted
In what way? They aren't really the biggest of leaps forward from XP. Unless you have some old legacy software or some really picky bespoke apps you shouldn't experience many ills changing up from XP. Any problems you do experience are manageable.

 

MetroUI and no start button in "classic desktop mode" is less manageable. I'm aware you can set it to boot into desktop by default, but the lack of proper start button and the instance of MetroUI on business desktops - that's disastrous!

 

They aren't big leaps from XP, but 7 only has a 20% market share (according to the article linked) and as you rightly say its a manageable change. An operating system that available yet cannot be called a disaster when its easy to upgrade predecessors have such a little share of the market place and companies are needlessly clinging on to XP.

 

Metro is just a full screen start menu. Its not as if you can multi-task when using the old start menu. The old start menu is a mono feature, just like metro (full screen start menu) and when setup how you want makes little difference. I think the main problem people have is that it not what they are used to, but that's just my opinion.

Posted
I think the main problem people have is that it not what they are used to, but that's just my opinion.

 

I don't think it's just the issue of change, more of an issue that the change seems to have been done for change's sake on desktops and makes you less productive than the previous UI. Also the lack of choice doesn't help, the fact you can't go back to desktop only is very irritating, especially if all your apps are Win32 based anyway. Would've been much less outcry if the Desktop was left as an option for users even if Metro was default (think Luna vs Classic Start Menu on XP)

Posted
An operating system that available yet cannot be called a disaster when its easy to upgrade predecessors have such a little share of the market place and companies are needlessly clinging on to XP.

 

I'd call having to use a previous, non-current, OS release as your upgrade path disastrous. If Win8 is the (soon to be) current OS you'd think it'd be usable as an upgrade path?

 

Metro is just a full screen start menu.

 

I know and it works great on touch screen devices (so long as you don't have too many programs installed). Doesn't work so great with a mouse, thus the complaints from a business perspective.

 

when setup how you want makes little difference. I think the main problem people have is that it not what they are used to, but that's just my opinion.

 

True, but lack of visual clue on how to access the start menu in the classic desktop...

 

Either users will be forces in to mouse scrolling through metro every time they want to run an app (and getting frustrated in the process). Or we'd be fielding a lot of support calls ("how do I run program 'X'?" ... "oh, that's how you bring the start menu, sorry I didn't see it there").

 

 

I suppose from an IT view point the Win 8 roll out would be.... turn Metro Off, install 3rd part start menu button :doh:

Posted
I don't think it's just the issue of change, more of an issue that the change seems to have been done for change's sake on desktops and makes you less productive than the previous UI. Also the lack of choice doesn't help, the fact you can't go back to desktop only is very irritating, especially if all your apps are Win32 based anyway. Would've been much less outcry if the Desktop was left as an option for users even if Metro was default (think Luna vs Classic Start Menu on XP)

 

The silly thing is that there is lots of good stuff about metro, bigger targets, grid rather than list arrangment etc. They steadfastly refused to modify it to be actually good though. Even if they had downsized it to 60% of the screen and not dropped out of desktop mode. There have been all sorts of surveys about how you forget stuff when going through doors, a jagged context switch like that is the same. They have selectivly used UI research to improve one bit while trashing it in another respect. Again, it is great for touch but is totally ridiculous for my two or three screen setups (common in lots of kids of business).

Posted (edited)
On desktops and makes you less productive than the previous UI.

 

Personally I've not found this.

 

 

Either users will be forces in to mouse scrolling through metro every time they want to run an app (and getting frustrated in the process). Or we'd be fielding a lot of support calls ("how do I run program 'X'?" ... "oh, that's how you bring the start menu, sorry I didn't see it there").

 

I can sense a wallpaper with the instructions on how to access the start menu coming on.

 

I made a toolbar for the start menu, but after the useful stuff was pinned or common apps moved to the front of the metro start menu its not really used now.

Edited by Theblacksheep
Posted

I wonder just how many people there are like me who spend hours doing serious work on a PC every day, using many different applications, but have absolutely no need for a smartphone or tablet, do not have either, and no interest in the metro interface.

 

I loaded Windows 8 on to one of my testbeds, (5 year old single core) no problem with installation, but to me, such a horrible interface that I cannot bring myself to waste time loading on applications to test it further.

 

I support a lot of elderly people, the small changes in interface from Vista to Win7 cause all sorts of unexpected problems for them, so I live in dread of a time when Win8 is the only replacement I can get for them!

 

I fear MS has really lost it this time!

Posted
I wonder just how many people there are like me who spend hours doing serious work on a PC every day, using many different applications, but have absolutely no need for a smartphone or tablet, do not have either, and no interest in the metro interface.

 

Loads and that's the problem with microsofts strategy. Apple uses the same OS on both platforms and Android is little more than a Linux distro but in both instances they use different gui's on the desktop and on mobile devices. If M$ wanted to us NT kernal for their mobiles they could have done it without inflicting the GUI on desktop users.

 

From a work perspective I have zero use for mobile devices. Even when talking 1 device per pupil we still expect them to need a certain number of regular desktops.

 

On the other hand as a home used I no longer have or need a regular pc or laptop. I have a htpc connected to the tv running Plex, controlled from my smartphone, a top end tablet and a games console.

Posted
Someone will find a way, the words "can't" and "blocked" are the kind of words the "community" takes a challenge :p

 

That usually works out when the source code is free. Any hacks to get explorer running on boot won't be supported by MS and consequently won't be used by the majority of enterprises. Roll on the 'NT' version.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now



×
×
  • Create New...