PDA

View Full Version : What does "free" mean?



darthsabbath
May 26th, 2005, 04:51 AM
I work at Dell technical support, and as such, we get a lot of calls dealing with Spyware and Virii. Well, to help alleviate the problem, we typically recommend tools to help the poor user from getting infected in the future. The question I hear so often is... "Is it free?"

Or, as another example... most Dell customers have onsite service contracts (at least for desktop users). When I let them know about this... "Is it free?"

Since using Ubuntu, that's become a harder and harder question to answer. Are you free if you have to rely on multiple anti-spyware tools just to be able to use the Internet, even if you didn't pay for them? Just because you don't pay for an onsite technician at that particular time, is it still free, since you essentially have no other choice (after all, if you took it to a local PC shop, and they damaged your PC further, then your warranty wouldn't cover it).

Just two instances lately wherea I've come to disassociate the word "free" with "no monetary cost."

I mean, I'm not a Free Software enthusiast to the point of, say, RMS, as I do enjoy non-Free games and what not, but the inherent values of the GNU/Linux system (and other Free software) becomes more and more apparent with each growing day. Booting into Windows to play games seems like such a chore... thankfully I do most of my gaming on consoles.

Off hand... how does the Free software movement look upon gaming consoles? Are they "immoral" in the same way that Windows is (not agreeing per se that Windows is evil, but that's the argument often cited), or are console games looked at as more of an appliance?

Thoughts? :D

Phil

TravisNewman
May 26th, 2005, 05:03 AM
Good point-- that's the question in some people's minds when they decide to switch, and it's becoming more and more prevalent.

Hopefully this thread won't start a flame war, because there are endless possibilities with a beginning like that :)

darthsabbath
May 26th, 2005, 05:14 AM
Ack... good point. Mods, feel free to lock it down if a flamewar starts... it certainly wasn't my intention to start a controversial threat.

I honestly don't know how the Free Software movement feels about game consoles... that's the main reason I asked, sheer curiosity.

Phil

TravisNewman
May 26th, 2005, 05:23 AM
It's interesting. It's obviously software, but it's a totally different area. It's not REALLY a pc. But should those morals follow? It's a proprietary system by default.

But then so are all toaster and microwave designs. I doubt even RMS only uses open source Refrigerators. RMS has also said that proprietary is ok if there's nothing to do the same with Free Software. There's easily NO other software to completely replicate GTA: San Andreas, so that might fall into the category of ok proprietary software-- then again, he and others may consider it games in general. Why buy Half-Life 2 when you could play Battle For Wesnoth for free?

I guess it boils down to how you define "the same."

ltmon
May 26th, 2005, 05:58 AM
I always thought the main tenant for Free Software was to keep your data free. A necessary part of this is freeing the software and standards that deal with your data, else you will end up (e.g.) with all your financial data locked in Excel or something.

Most people don't keep data itself on their consoels, so the question is less pressing for that. Also, games are much more than most software. They are art (graphic, sound and storytelling) as much as they are a software engine, so many of the the software-specific Free Software tenets don't really apply.

Of course you also have the "it's my hardware, i bought it, why won't you let me do what I want with it" argument, which is more along the lines of consumer rights than Free Software.

Of course this could just be a rambling answer to an incredibly broad question ;-)

pdk001
May 26th, 2005, 06:04 AM
free means in linux is sharing info and open source, it's not free to get applications

TravisNewman
May 26th, 2005, 06:05 AM
Free Software goes WAY past keeping data free. It's about the freedom to mold the software to do what you want it to, and the freedom to see and know what the software does. And much much more.

But the point you make is a good one. Games are almost in a different layer.

bored2k
May 26th, 2005, 06:07 AM
Why buy Half-Life 2 when you could play Battle For Wesnoth for free?
Ok you really need to explain that sentence because I'm smacking my head in disbelief..

TravisNewman
May 26th, 2005, 06:11 AM
Ok you really need to explain that sentence because I'm smacking my head in disbelief..
*L*

I'm saying, as it involves the RMS quote that proprietary software is ok if there's no alternative.
Do you consider wesnoth as an alternative since it's a game, or is is NOT an alternative since it's nothing like it?

bored2k
May 26th, 2005, 06:22 AM
*L*

I'm saying, as it involves the RMS quote that proprietary software is ok if there's no alternative.
Do you consider wesnoth as an alternative since it's a game, or is is NOT an alternative since it's nothing like it?
Ok first of all I'm sorry for being a lame fanboy but, there's no alternate to Half-Life 2. Ever.

Personally I would consider and alternate for a similar game like Age of Empires, Romance of the Three Kingdoms. Being a FSoftware advocate, I think I would be a hypocritical to just say "Oh as the world is driving nuts for Halo 2 I'll just Ignore it because I have Wesnoth..".

We need some deep philosopher to post here because I dont know how I could live with myself if I traded G-Turismo4 for TuxRacer, FinalFantasyX/Link2thePast for Wesnoth, Castlevania (any) for Supertux..

NeoChaosX
May 26th, 2005, 06:37 AM
I think it's because many games, are not so much "software" as they are becoming true art forms. Whether on PC or consoles, professionally-developed software have a polish and production value that I don't think many independent/free developers can match (without getting backing from a big company, anyway). These kind of games are more than just their code; it's their graphics, sounds, and the story they tell that gives a game the epic feel that stuff like Half-Life 2 and GTA:San Andreas have.

Many free-source games, while fun, will rarely, if ever, have the kind of polish that Half-Life 2 had because most FOSS developers do it on the free time. An actual budget allows developers time and resources to give it that kind of rigiorous testing and polish it goes through. The free software community's insistence that all assets related to the software have to given away can also be a pain in the butt for games like these; sure, GTA San Andreas could've been an open-source PC game, but do you think the the big record labels that own the rights to the music that are used in that game would have just as willing to license the songs if they knew it was going to be given away with the game? Sure, it could've been released without all the rap and rock songs, but it would've detracted from the early-90's experience that GTA:SA offers.

That's why you can't throw away closed-source games in favor of free games; they offer not just a program, but an experience that is hard to match with open-source games and the way they're developed.

bored2k
May 26th, 2005, 06:45 AM
Completely agree. I have never felt as amazed/shocked in a game when I first saw City 17 in all its glory..

benplaut
May 26th, 2005, 06:50 AM
i guess, to cover yourself (back to the origional post), you could just say that (for Adaware), "there is a free/lite version available", and Spybot S&D is FOSS, right?

poofyhairguy
May 26th, 2005, 07:15 AM
First of all let me say- great post. Really really good post.




Off hand... how does the Free software movement look upon gaming consoles? Are they "immoral" in the same way that Windows is (not agreeing per se that Windows is evil, but that's the argument often cited), or are console games looked at as more of an appliance?


Hmmm.. well they arecomputers kinda, but if you include game consoles you have to include cell phones, cars, planes, medical equipment, TVs, everything that has a computer in it.

I don't know.

Ironi
May 26th, 2005, 08:04 AM
Wonderful post, NeoChaosX. I completely agree as well. It's a shame that most commercial game developers continue to ignore Linux desktop users; I think that they see all of us as "Free everything!" hippies or something. That's quite unfortunate, considering that I'm responsible for the purchase of far too many commercial games over the course of my 25 year life. My goodwill toward them is slowly but surely eroding as they continue to not only ignore my operating system of choice, but also increasingly support Microsoft and its products -- the very things that I'm trying my damnedest to stay away from.