Mars icecream 57 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Is it allowed to add "proprietary software" as a con to articles of non-free programs? I can give the Steam client, Gamesave Manager and Windows OS as an examples. You can read more about the term here: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/why-free.html ​ /s Mirh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbird 54 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Is this satire? Who cares? 99% of people visiting PCGW can't do anything with the source code anyway. There is a reason why DRM shouldn't be marked as negative too unless it is very restrictive. BTW it's proprietary not Propriety or propietary :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marioysikax 89 Share Posted August 2, 2015 I would say yes, but blackbird is right that end user simply doesn't care. For them it's question of is it free or paid software. But that can't be negative point either as paid version can offer more or something else than free does, e.g. most games are for windows, even if it is proprietary software, it makes playing games easier even if linux would othervice be better option for the user. I'm also fairly sure that people are aware that something like steam isn't exactly open source either. BTW it's proprietary not Propriety or propietary :P English is haaard language. I can't even pronounce that word without help. Blackbird and Mars icecream 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbird 54 Share Posted August 2, 2015 Don't get me wrong I have nothing against open-source and I am glad it exists but I am sure most users don't care. It just looked like a joke since OP linked to that weirdo Stallman that considers anything slightly proprietary bad which is childish and unrealistic. Marioysikax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alexrd 5 Share Posted August 2, 2015 There is a reason why DRM shouldn't be marked as negative too unless it is very restrictive. Which is...? And what's the standard for DRM restrictiveness? Everyone has a different one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garrett 211 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Which is...? And what's the standard for DRM restrictiveness? Everyone has a different one. ​ DRM that is always-online gets a negative key point. This also applies to games that do run offline but are essentially unusable like that (e.g. Elite: Dangerous needs server access for basic functions like trading). When always-online DRM has been removed this change is mentioned as a key point with the neutral indicator (e.g. SimCity (2013)). Other forms of DRM do not usually get a key point. A neutral point is included under availability (if applicable). If you're unsure you can refer to the page of a game with the same or similar DRM type or just ask about it. Blackbird 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mars icecream 57 Author Share Posted August 3, 2015 Don't get me wrong I have nothing against open-source and I am glad it exists but I am sure most users don't care. It just looked like a joke since OP linked to that weirdo Stallman that considers anything slightly proprietary bad which is childish and unrealistic. Yes, Stallman is the most paranoid person in the world, but that isn't necessarily a bad thing. Calling Mac OS and Windows as "malware" is a valid point in my opinion. Is this satire? Who cares? 99% of people visiting PCGW can't do anything with the source code anyway. ​This isn't about improving the source code yourself, someone else can and will develop software for others to use. For example the screen capture tool FRAPS would greatly benefit from going to FOSS, the program hasn't been updated in two and a half years but the base is strong. Also, open source software rarely contains malware, ads or tracking because people can and will built the program from the source after checking it's validity and remove unwanted components if they so desire. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbird 54 Share Posted August 3, 2015 Calling Mac OS and Windows as "malware" is a valid point in my opinion. Nope sorry, but that's just silly hyperbole and scaremongering. W10 might be awful in this regard, but not any previous version and definitely not OS X. And ofc any program could benefit from being FOSS, but dreams don't magically transform into reality. There is also the thing where most FOSS alternatives are worse than proprietary ones such as GIMP vs Photoshop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marioysikax 89 Share Posted August 3, 2015 ​This isn't about improving the source code yourself, someone else can and will develop software for others to use. For example the screen capture tool FRAPS would greatly benefit from going to FOSS, the program hasn't been updated in two and a half years but the base is strong. Also, open source software rarely contains malware, ads or tracking because people can and will built the program from the source after checking it's validity and remove unwanted components if they so desire. At that point, I would say bigger point would be that program isn't updated in years, instead of it not being foss. They are still selling the product, so in their eyes of course open sourcing it would seem bad at least at the moment. Also that if program isn't updated in long time, userbase will slowly move away when there's newer, better and more modern alternatives available. Just shame with many cases it seems to be bandicam for some bloody reason... I would say that if there are several similar programs available, where one is open source, It's good to be noted. That's the reason why I use 7zip over winrar personally, rar is awful format in that front. But having negative note on every proprietary program would simply be insane. I would also say that programs like steam are in state they basically can't be open sourced and there can't be alternatives. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Nicereddy 109 Share Posted August 3, 2015 At that point, I would say bigger point would be that program isn't updated in years, instead of it not being foss. They are still selling the product, so in their eyes of course open sourcing it would seem bad at least at the moment. Also that if program isn't updated in long time, userbase will slowly move away when there's newer, better and more modern alternatives available. Just shame with many cases it seems to be bandicam for some bloody reason... I would say that if there are several similar programs available, where one is open source, It's good to be noted. That's the reason why I use 7zip over winrar personally, rar is awful format in that front. But having negative note on every proprietary program would simply be insane. I would also say that programs like steam are in state they basically can't be open sourced and there can't be alternatives. I disagree with it not being possible for the Steam source to be released. If they have some proprietary third-party software embedded inside, that I can understand, but Valve has done quite a bit of open source work in the last few years, I don't think Steam is necessarily an exception. The value of Steam isn't really in its client, that thing barely works half the time (on OS X, at least), it's in the selection of games, sales, friends already on the service, and features which can't easily be duplicated, e.g. Steam Workshop. Open sourcing it shouldn't really hurt their bottom line. Admittedly though, based on my attempt at making a skin for the Steam client once upon a time, I'm not sure I even want to see the source to that thing :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mirh 102 Share Posted August 6, 2015 We are here for fixes. The license is not point. It's about your product is more or less buggy. The two thing might or might not even be linked: if your code is publicly available, I guess your product will be less likely to have a problem for long (assuming an equal amount of developers/voluntaries behind) But nothing stops the closed source alternative from being more responsive to community complaints. This is what I believe we really love. It's also true that until a good open source program come out (everybody can potentially modify it), there'll never be a "definitive" proprietary software So, I'd say that while FOSS may be seen as a positive point, the contrary shouldn't be seen as bad. Also, speaking of what we want, and what we can instead talk of: I'd really want to make a point about stupid lame Mass Effect 2 DLCs prices. But that'd be stupid. So, I'll instead focus on reporting the reason for that, which is weird licensing issues between EA and bioware Which is...? And what's the standard for DRM restrictiveness? Everyone has a different one. Good point. As far as I have seen, CD checks and always online restrictions are considered invasive. The online-at-first-start kind of DRM on the other hand is almost treated as inexistent (especially since people don't even usually realize it's there because they hardly try to analyze games before having finished them) Indeed, I don't know though if this distinction ("good DRM" VS "evil DRM") makes really sense ​ This isn't about improving the source code yourself, someone else can and will develop software for others to use. For example the screen capture tool FRAPS would greatly benefit from going to FOSS, the program hasn't been updated in two and a half years but the base is strong.Also, open source software rarely contains malware, ads or tracking because people can and will built the program from the source after checking it's validity and remove unwanted components if they so desire. Jesus. As I said plenties of times FRAPS can go screw itself. We are here for games. Recording software is not our purpose, it's our means. FRAPS has been surpassed in every conceivable way by a lot of alternatives. Continuing to mention it for "popularity" even in this conditions is just stupid, and will only serve to extend its undeserved fame. And it's not like even there aren't open source alternatives already, or that opening code wouldn't basically benefit everything.. Marioysikax 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mars icecream 57 Author Share Posted December 3, 2015 Nope sorry, but that's just silly hyperbole and scaremongering. W10 might be awful in this regard, but not any previous version and definitely not OS X. And ofc any program could benefit from being FOSS, but dreams don't magically transform into reality. There is also the thing where most FOSS alternatives are worse than proprietary ones such as GIMP vs Photoshop. Yes and many open source programs are unambiguously better than the proprietary alternatives. For example VLC, 7-Zip, qBittorrent, TWRP, Firefox, Thunderbird and the Dolphin emulator. As closed-source operating systems Windows and OS X can never be "secure" and it has been proved that NSA has a free access to MS Windows: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40836.html Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blackbird 54 Share Posted December 3, 2015 lol why did you bump this I use MPC-HC, WinRAR, uTorrent and Chrome BTW :) ( also nothing to hide here :^) ) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Share Posted December 3, 2015 -Snip- Actually I changed my mind, I'm not too sure about what I said. But adding these key points is kinda pointless and it won't change anything. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marioysikax 89 Share Posted December 3, 2015 Yes and many open source programs are unambiguously better than the proprietary alternatives. For example VLC, 7-Zip, qBittorrent, TWRP, Firefox, Thunderbird and the Dolphin emulator. As closed-source operating systems Windows and OS X can never be "secure" and it has been proved that NSA has a free access to MS Windows: http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article40836.html VLC is pretty good "get videos working with minimal effort in single package without codec hasshle" but it's still the most hated program with some enthusiastic groups for several good reasons. But those are all good alternative programs, but will most likely not be mentioned in any way on the wiki as they aren't gaming related programs and this is forum section to talk about the wiki, not general discussion. For gaming related things, majority of games are closed source, majority of programs used with games are closed source and majority of games are designed for Windows and if somethings open source or have open source alternative, it's usually already said in some form of said things article and usually in positive matter. Actually not long ago update Aquaria to reflect this. It's still pointless to go trough every single game article writing "isn't open source, not available on open source operating system". lol why did you bump this I use MPC-HC, WinRAR, uTorrent and Chrome BTW :) ( also nothing to hide here :^) ) MPC-HC is open source. WinRAR is actually Trialware so it's not even technically free, even though everyone uses it because of the lack of time limit in that trial. I would also like to boycott the whole thing because of proprierary rar format and the newest RAR5 version of it... µTorrent became so bad after version 3 that every single friend have either downgraded to 2 (and using old software is bad in long run) or moved to something like qBittorrent or Tixati. BUT it has "the Fraps syndrome" if I would like to call it, as because it has been popular for so long, many will use it for that reason only instead of seeking out alternatives. Chrome is basically open source as well, but with Google features implemented on top of it. And "nothing to hide" isn't good respond to anything, though being foilhat about everything isn't good thing either. TL;DR: Open source = Good, almost nothing to do with wiki, period. Mirh 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts