241–250 of 623 posts
I'll go ahead and shoot. The fact that this topic would be off-topic is just not true as the person speaking is in fact rms. Does this mean he is recuperated now? Everyone was calling him a pedophile and the FSF lost a lot of contacts over him being re-appointed. What does this mean then? Tbh, I was curious what happened since last year and I didn't realize at the time he was somewhat apologetic, and honestly, it is…
> Now, more free games? It doesn't satisfy an urgent practical need, obviously... But the crucial thing is, free ones might make it easier for some people to say, 'Let's move off this non-free thing, and play a game that is free. So we can have the same pleasure, but without paying freedom as the price.'“ i'm sorry but i just can't read this without laughing. what does stallman think gamers are like? i can only imagi…
Today I downloaded a free game and having fun [1]
$ colossal-cave-adventure WELCOME TO ADVENTURE!! WOULD YOU LIKE INSTRUCTIONS?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it isn’t. Anti cheat is basically DRM/malware. If you could fully understand how it works you could just modify it / work your cheats around it.
I don't think this is really a given. I admit I'm not familiar with whether or not there exist some free and open source anti-cheat software out there but I can definitely imagine a world where if people put enough resources in developing such software it'd be totally possible to be as good as current proprietary anti-cheat techniques. Claiming that knowing how the code works lets you break the code is basically advo…
>advocating for security by obscurity
There is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand what you are doing. The goal of anticheat is to prevent cheat makers from being able to make cheats for your game for as long as possible. Increasing the time and skill needed to reverse engineer your anticheat increases the time it takes for someone to develop a cheat.
>it'd be like saying that since I have access to the entire code of my SSH client, that gives me the capability of modifying it so it lets me connect to every server (even those that I do not own) without a password
With this kind of problem of authentication it is simple to design the code such that the time it will take for an attacker to break the security to be impractical. Anticheat on the other hand is not a problem that has a solution like that. If you want to check if a click came from a mouse or a cheat program and you trust the client to tell you where it came from it's impossible to prevent the client from lying. Since it's trivial to lie you need to find a way to slow down attackers to make it harder to lie.
> “Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything bad about playing a game. Unless the game is non-free — then it's bad for you, if you play it. I get that Stallman's shtick is being as hardline as possible about free software, but it really feels like sometimes this hurts the free software movement. Imagine trying to bring in a normal, non-technical person who plays video games as one of their hobbies (describes…
Someone who thinks eating sick animals (most meat products) is unethical, isn't going to compromise their personal values just because you're treating them to a meal at the local steakhouse.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. So he asked Stallman what to do about that. Stallman's reply? "You should not be making those games, it is unethical." To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shuttin…
The real surprise is that Stallman restrained himself from telling the dev that having children is unethical.
> Now, more free games? It doesn't satisfy an urgent practical need, obviously... But the crucial thing is, free ones might make it easier for some people to say, 'Let's move off this non-free thing, and play a game that is free. So we can have the same pleasure, but without paying freedom as the price.'“ i'm sorry but i just can't read this without laughing. what does stallman think gamers are like? i can only imagi…
And everything gets released on GNU/Linux two months before it gets ported to anything else.
I use Ubuntu because it came with the computer, although it is a old version, and I have removed many of the included packages. (If I was setting it up myself, then I might prefer one without systemd (and without Wayland, if possible); I would also need it to be based on free software, although I do not require that the package manager does not include non-free software, just that installing those packages must not be required.)
> What's getting worse? Well, the libre-booted machines that we have are getting older and scarcer. Finding a way to support something new is difficult, because Intel and AMD are both designing their hardware to subjugate people.
Yes, this is a problem (there are other problems with modern x86, and modern computers in general (e.g. USB and HDMI and UEFI), too). We will need better ones; I have many ideas about it, although none have been implemented (some other people also have some ideas that I think are good).
> Well, first of all, I don't think there's anything bad about playing a game. Unless the game is non-free — then it's bad for you, if you play it. ... But typically these games are not solitaire; you're playing with other people.
Actually, many games are solitaire, or at least the ones that I play, are.
However, emulated games are one case where I might use non-free software (although free software is still better for many reasons).
> Now, more free games? It doesn't satisfy an urgent practical need, obviously...
Well, there are people who write them (including myself), and there are many available.
> Planned obsolescence causes a lot of waste.
I agree; planned obsolescence is one of the bad ideas they have with many modern computers. They mention some problems, there.
> Stallman announcing a Manual for GNU C
Of course there is already a manual for GCC, but this look like a manual for learning programming in C, specific to GNU C. I think this is a good idea; the official standard is nonfree and contains many complicated and usually irrelevant stuff, so having a free manual will be an improvement, I think.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A few years ago I saw an indie game developer recount his experience with Stallman[1]; he doesn't see how he can release his games as Free Software while making a living, pay his rent, pay for his children's education, etc. So he asked Stallman what to do about that. Stallman's reply? "You should not be making those games, it is unethical." To say that is non-constructive would be an understatement; it's just shuttin…
Stallman and the FSF see closed source software as unethical. Imagine if someone asked you for help and said "I don't see how to free my slaves while making a living, paying my rent, paying for my children's education". Would you tell them "You shouldn't have slaves, it's unethical" or would you try to help them find a way to run their business with fewer slaves, but still some?
However, in my opinion, this game developer interested in doing the right thing is the kind of person the FSF and Stallman should focus on and work on finding solutions for, because they could make a difference and even move part of the industry to free software. Telling such people they are not doing the right thing without giving any trail is not going to achieve much and could even repel them. That's counter productive.
One could say that the concerned developer should instead think themself of a solution. That's partly true. I think they should if they are really concerned. However, the whole goal of the FSF is to move the world to free software. They should work to provide trails to such people, because they have all the incentive to do so, even more than the concerned developer. They should provide a welcoming climate so such developer want to join (even more).
I think Stallman should be prepared to give a kind, low effort answer to such a "basic" question. It can be low effort because sometimes the question is low effort too, or even a bit ill-intended and yes, the developer should do their homework. But a nice, positive answer could make things change and engage people.
(I say "basic", but that does not mean the problem is easy. I think it's hard.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think this is really a given. I admit I'm not familiar with whether or not there exist some free and open source anti-cheat software out there but I can definitely imagine a world where if people put enough resources in developing such software it'd be totally possible to be as good as current proprietary anti-cheat techniques. Claiming that knowing how the code works lets you break the code is basically advo…
It'd be simple to develop stealth code to hide your cheats. >advocating for security by obscurity There is nothing wrong with this as long as you understand what you are doing. The goal of anticheat is to prevent cheat makers from being able to make cheats for your game for as long as possible. Increasing the time and skill needed to reverse engineer your anticheat increases the time it takes for someone to develop a…
There are already VMs that are used to run trusted instructions on a target (read: client) machine and regardless of you knowing how the VM works and what the code does, if you don't "play by the rules" (as is the world of cryptography), your data will not be accepted and you will get kicked/banned/disconnected.
Is it computationally expensive? Probably. Is it feasible? I don't know. Is it theoretically possible? I'd say so.
>Increasing the time and skill needed to reverse engineer your anticheat increases the time it takes for someone to develop a cheat.
This is the good ol' security by obscurity fallacy. Having it open increases the amount of people who have eyes on the code and contribute to the code and finds exploits to patch, etc. It's two sides of the same coin.
From what I can tell, RMS asserts we have the right to inspect the source code of the software that runs on our machines. What is the source of this right? Is it a universal human right? A self-evident inalienable right? Did RMS want to hack a printer one day and found he couldn't so he made up a right for us? Why are people who ship closed software evil? For someone who goes around moralizing and judging others, RMS…