• JustEnoughDucks@feddit.nl
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well this article is pretty disingenuous…

    1. The distribution “managed by a single person” depends on hundreds of people working on different sofware to keep up. It’s not “one person doing better than the thousands of Microsoft employees combined” implication they are pushing

    2. Windows 11 beat the linux distros by up to 20% in 1% lows which are argued as much more important by most tech reviewers. It wasn’t consistant at all which means that there was a giant margin of error.

    I love linux and linux gaming has gotten radically better, but I am tired of tech “journalism” literally just cherrypicking, misleading, clickbait trash.

    • huginn@feddit.it
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      Not to mention the major hurdle for Linux gaming is anti cheat software being brought over. Too many games are 100% unplayable because the devs don’t allow their anticheat to be installed on Linux systems

      • vexikron@lemmy.zip
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        edit-2
        10 months ago

        This is because most anti cheats for windows are kernel level rootkits that have full access to your entire system, and gamers just trust that known to be ineffective, scammy and profiteering, anti cheat companies software companies would /never/ do anything nefarious.

        How can you trust them?

        You can’t! Black boxed code, babyyyyyy.

        Anyway yeah on linux systems basically the designs of all common anti cheat systems would be laughed at as hilariously insecure code that no sane person would allow on their computer because you would have to give it root level access.

        This is basically insane as in the linux paradigm, root level access is reserved only for a bare minimum of system processes, whereas on Windows, well with the new Pluton tech in the latest lines of major CPUs, Windows has the ability to DRM literally anything you install on it and just get rid of your ability to run or install it, as they see fit, with a network enabled sub layer of the CPU that you as a user cannot override from within Windows.

        The only hurdle for linux gaming is for more gamers and game developers to realize the truth of what I just said.

        Its possible to do anti cheat in less invasive ways. But that requires more work from game development studios, and is costly.

        Anyone else remember when servers had like actual human admins that would respond to player complaints, and would work on the backend of a server to come up with their own ways to detect cheating server side?

        • interceder270@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          0
          ·
          11 months ago

          Client-side anti-cheat has always been a scam to offload server processing onto client machines.

          This results in worse cheat detection and wastes client resources, but companies like EA can spend less on servers.

          • ffhein@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            11 months ago

            In the defence of client side AC; if the entire game runs on the server, then network delay makes FPS:es awful to play. Being able to trust clients and let them do hit detection is quite important in making online FPS:es responsive. In addition, cheats that remove walls/grass, highlight players or even autoaim are near impossible to detect server side. One could try to use heuristics and statistics but it would be difficult to tell the difference between cheaters and players who are just good at aiming and map awareness.

  • Pantherina@feddit.de
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5eKSQT5mV-c

    Important: Nobara is way less Secure than Fedora.

    • no Secureboot
    • monthly updates instead of often daily
    • purposefully removed SELinux (because the Dev doesnt know how to use it)
    • still no Fedora39!

    If you want to game, stick to regular Fedora. A project that is actually secure is ublue with dedicated NVIDIA images that should just work and never break, and they even have Bazzite, an Image specifically for the Steamdeck but also for Desktop.

    These images are only ½ day behind upstream, apply minimal additions and patches (like drivers, codecs, packages, udev rules for controllers) and Nick from the video above found out that the Nobara patches with their weird less supported Kernel arent really worth the hassle.

    • retro@infosec.pub
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      11 months ago

      As a non-power user, I don’t want daily updates. Monthly is perfectly fine for me.

    • Skimmer@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      11 months ago

      I 100% agree, its best to just stick to upstream Fedora imo. Glad you made this comment. The security issues of Nobara always put me off, especially since basically everything it does can just be applied to regular Fedora. I think Nobara would much better serve as a script or toolkit, similar to Brace, or something along those lines instead of an entire separate OS with the security issues it brings.

      • Pantherina@feddit.de
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Proprietary UEFI BIOS is, but for a secure system with local manipulation prevention it can be needed. Also secureboot is a security measurement against malware so no, its simply the best we have.

        Look at Coreboot if you want a secure modern system

        • novacustom
        • 3mdeb
        • starlabs
        • system76
        • yum13241@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          11 months ago

          Secure Boot is just Bootloader Signature Enforcement controlled by M$, it’s not gonna prevent Superfish 2.0 from happening.

          Unfortunately, I don’t have a coreboot-able system. When I move out I’ll make that a priority.

            • yum13241@lemm.ee
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              0
              ·
              11 months ago

              I never bought my current machines. Funnily enough, they don’t show any logos on bootup, (Windows Boot Manager is smth else)

              • Norah - She/They@lemmy.blahaj.zone
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                0
                ·
                11 months ago

                The vulnerability actually isn’t in Windows Boot Manager, it’s a flaw in the image-parsing code of the UEFI itself. That’s why it’s able to bypass SecureBoot.

                It just happens that for whatever reason you can easily update the image file from within Windows/Linux itself. The fact they don’t show a logo currently does not mean you’re immune, as the system might just be showing a black screen at that point. Code can be injected into an image file without perceptibly affecting the image output, so you’d likely be able to use a “black screen” logo. If your computer has a UEFI instead of a BIOS, which is pretty much everything from the last 10yrs, then you are more than likely at risk.

                My computer likely isn’t susceptible, and that’s because it’s a Dell workstation. While the bug still exists in the image parser, Dell has locked things down so it’s pretty much impossible to change the boot logo from userspace.

                • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  11 months ago

                  FWIW, some firmware allow changing it during the update procedure. I remember having to update my ThinkPad’s firmware and it had that option.

  • Flaky@iusearchlinux.fyi
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    edit-2
    11 months ago

    For whatever reason, Windows 11 is worse at Cyberpunk 2077 than Arch for me. Constant stuttering. It might be that Arch has much less going on than Windows, but it’s enough for me to use Linux as my main gaming OS now.

  • Lionel@endlesstalk.org
    cake
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    11 months ago

    Well since it’s slower that just means it’s being more careful and not prone to making mistakes

      • teichflamme@lemm.ee
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        0
        ·
        11 months ago

        Anticheat isn’t malware. Malware has adverse effects on your system.

        AC uses some techniques that some forms of malware also use (but far from all)

          • jimbo@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            0
            ·
            11 months ago

            Anticheat benefits the users by…reducing the number of cheaters in games. Big concept to wrap your head around, I know.

            • woelkchen@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              11 months ago

              There are several forms of anticheat. The ones that just run when the game is running, is usually fine. However, there is the Riot anti cheat which just runs all the time and isn’t uninstalled when Valorant is uninstalled. That is malware.