Newell talked openly about this entire topic at LinuxCon years ago. It’s been 12 years and they’ve been true to their word.
The amount they’ve contributed upstream is insane, and the money they’ve provided to Linux-ecosystem contractors is also insane.
They’re profit motivated, 100%, but at least they’ve done so while being a good citizen in the FOSS movement (bar the Steam Client itself). SUSE, Canonical etc are all for-profit orgs that help push FOSS forward.
Profitability and Free and Open Source Software aren’t mutually exclusive.
Stallman would disagree with you, I believe. The Free Software Moment has never been about not making money, it’s about liberty with the software you use. Free as in freedom, not free as in beer; free as in libre, not free as in gratis.
Quote from FSF:
Many people believe that the spirit of the GNU Project is that you should not charge money for distributing copies of software, or that you should charge as little as possible—just enough to cover the cost. This is a misunderstanding.
Actually, we encourage people who redistribute free software to charge as much as they wish or can.
Bormanis was given a hard task, to be fair. So many scripts just had (TECH) written where the writers needed help and Bormanis would have to shoehorn something in (and before Bormanis, the actors probably just made a lot of it up).
Thankfully most of the science fiction isn’t in that technobabble but in the plot lines; questioning what it is to be human, to be civilised, and what meaning there is to life, post-scarcity.
Star Wars is an action/adventure/drama series that happens to be in space (they called it “space opera” for good reason).
Star Trek is a science fiction series, at least until Fuller/Kurtzman (where it strayed more to action/adventure). You kind of have to bisect Star Trek into pre and post Roddenberry/Berman.
Seconded. I met a partner of 4 years while they were working at a local market.
As I lived about 100 meters from the market, I did most of my shopping there and would be there every other day. We slowly got to chatting as they started to recognise me and one day, as I walked in, they were at the register with another customer and I waved a silent “hello” and noticed they blushed as they waved back.
Asked them if they wanted to grab a coffee sometime and got the quickest yes of my life.
Sadly we had to move to different cities and amicably ended the relationship after those 4 years.
Makes a lot of sense. GOG would have been an easy thing to sell off if financials weren’t going well. This way, GOG can be protected (100% owned by the founder with no shareholders) should the worst happen.
Hopefully this could mean GOG has a daring plan ahead (I’ve long thought they might take a gamble on a Linux client that packages Proton/DOSbox like Steam.
Here’s hoping GOG continues on strong into the new year and beyond!
Bad for Meta. They wasted a lot of time, money, manpower etc.
Edit: I’m just answering the person’s question. I hate Meta - I don’t have Facebook and I don’t have a Quest.