How so? Steam runs in the background, in offline mode if you have no access to the internet. If you do, it connects and then runs silently in the background. Impulse does not need to run in the background.
Maybe steam does slightly different things too, but what users need to know is that steam needs to run when the game runs, impulse does not. It is not a dramatic difference in my book, but anyone can feel free to feel different. To me as a user, all that matters is that steam runs in the background and impulse needs not do this. That is all I ever notice in difference, and if that is all I ever notice from the whole steam platform, I'd say that for the end user like me who is as pragmatic as I am it hardly matters if one uses impulse or steam, especially if one has access to the internet on a daily basis.
Be that as it may, I was talking about DRM, and the differences to steam and impulse users for those who have access to the internet at home. I had indeed not though about the implications of my statement for society as a whole, or what would happen if any one would generalize my point of view to the extend where it would be applied outside of this context to be a universal truth. In that case my opinion might need some revision. In the topic at hand though it was perfectly fine.
The fact that you recognize it as a difference is sufficient, whether you consider it a significant difference or not is your own choice, but your post claimed that they were alike, when in fact they are not. Your argument about end users may be valid, but you cannot possibly expect this to extend to every single person. In fact, I'd wager that a good many people are concerned what is being done on their computer, given the numerous concerns regarding privacy etc that are present in many of the Steam threads.
Edit: Sorry, forgot to reply to a question: If you cannot see the difference between a one-time activation process and the need to activate another programme every time you run the game I'm not sure what I can say to persuade you.
Read back over your post and you'll see that you brought it into the general realm which incited my reply. Here, I'll break down for you how I read it so you can see where I'm coming from.
You point out that Steam and Impulse are the same, but cite a difference which is subsequently deemed of little value (
Basically steam does what impulse does, except that impulse needs to be ran for updating only and not in order to play a game.). Then you go on and argue that his argument is flawed because you have seen him on the internet (
That being said, you seem to post on a regular basis both here and on the emelental forum, so you seem to have access to the internet on a regular basis.), which somehow negates his entire argument. You follow this up with a general statement on Principles vs/ Pragmatism (
I can see principles as being a good thing, up to the point where it does not interfere with pragmatism.), and then continue this general field of thought citing Steam as an example (
Once principles hinder being rational about things like allowing steam when using steam is not really an issue to begin with, then it boggles my mind that one finds impulse good and steam intrusive.). I can only conclude from this that your assertion that principles are secondary to pragmatism is a more general point of which Steam is merely a component. Which left me to point out that if so, there are many other implications for this line of thinking that you may not have considered.