That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
genuine question: why would you install steam os on a pc if you want to play video games and you already have windows
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
genuine question: why would you install steam os on a pc if you want to play video games and you already have windows
Windows has held a place no one has been able to replace. MS is turning Windows more and more into being about making you and your data the product. The saying goes "In business when you get something for free, you are the product" You would be shocked how much Windows has changed since you get to upgrade for free and not for the good.
Comes down to just having another option in the end. Linux is a open platform and that has many good things that go with it and some bad.
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
Anti cheat software is 100% a problem on lunix. I also don't think that's a valid reason to not support it. Anti cheat software developers will start working on ways to make this work, when it's worth their time.
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
Anti cheat software is 100% a problem on lunix. I also don't think that's a valid reason to not support it. Anti cheat software developers will start working on ways to make this work, when it's worth their time.
You are close to being right here.
The one thing you have wrong is that the next step is not from anti-cheat software developers, nor game developers. It is Linux developers that need to take that next step.
As long as the user has better access to the kernel than the software, you cant have functional anti-cheat software.
Since most Linux development decisions are made by software engineers, this is something that is almost guranteed to never happen. Software engineers don't generally see value in limiting user access. Since this is only really a change that competitive games would need, the general concensus seems to be that Linux users can just play the many non-competitive games that are available, and retain full kernel access.
I actually agree that this is the right choice for Linux, as user access to everything is kind of the point.However, this is the change that needs to be made in order for competitive games to consider Linux - which is to say that competitive games probably shouldnt ever be played on Linux.
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
Anti cheat software is 100% a problem on lunix. I also don't think that's a valid reason to not support it. Anti cheat software developers will start working on ways to make this work, when it's worth their time.
You are close to being right here.
The one thing you have wrong is that the next step is not from anti-cheat software developers, nor game developers. It is Linux developers that need to take that next step.
As long as the user has better access to the kernel than the software, you cant have functional anti-cheat software.
Since most Linux development decisions are made by software engineers, this is something that is almost guranteed to never happen. Software engineers don't generally see value in limiting user access. Since this is only really a change that competitive games would need, the general concensus seems to be that Linux users can just play the many non-competitive games that are available, and retain full kernel access.
I actually agree that this is the right choice for Linux, as user access to everything is kind of the point.However, this is the change that needs to be made in order for competitive games to consider Linux - which is to say that competitive games probably shouldnt ever be played on Linux.
A deamon that could be responsible for that level of access. Linux adds and removes them as needed. Stop playing games it would not be needed. Start playing and your gtg.
Also love the argument "nobody plays on Linux, thus we don't need to consider it", what a classic!
@nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith. All I've asked Intrepid is to not deliberately block linux, but these guys carry on as if allowing linux players is going to open the gates to hell. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
That 1% people keep quoting is far from what Linux Gaming has been going since the Steam Deck launched. There is many more millions of new Linux gamers. Because of what Valve has done, it takes little to support Linux gaming. You still use a Windows exe but you just need to support the proton support for Linux. More and more people are making Linux gaming boxes. Ashes should so add support for this.
None of what Valve has done has any impact on making Linux a suitable platform for competitive games.
Casual/single player games perhaps, but not any game with any form of competition.
Additionally, Steam Deck existing has not really added many Linux first gamers - almost everyone that has one uses it as their secondary or tertiary gaming device.
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
Anti cheat software is 100% a problem on lunix. I also don't think that's a valid reason to not support it. Anti cheat software developers will start working on ways to make this work, when it's worth their time.
You are close to being right here.
The one thing you have wrong is that the next step is not from anti-cheat software developers, nor game developers. It is Linux developers that need to take that next step.
As long as the user has better access to the kernel than the software, you cant have functional anti-cheat software.
Since most Linux development decisions are made by software engineers, this is something that is almost guranteed to never happen. Software engineers don't generally see value in limiting user access. Since this is only really a change that competitive games would need, the general concensus seems to be that Linux users can just play the many non-competitive games that are available, and retain full kernel access.
I actually agree that this is the right choice for Linux, as user access to everything is kind of the point.However, this is the change that needs to be made in order for competitive games to consider Linux - which is to say that competitive games probably shouldnt ever be played on Linux.
A deamon that could be responsible for that level of access.
It literally couldn't.
A daemon is a process that the user doesnt have direct control over, this is probably why your quick google search made you think this could do what i am talking about.
The problem is, a daemon is still just a process running on top of the OS kernel. If the user has access to the kernel underneath the daemon, it doesnt matter that the user cant directly interact with said daemon.
Nothing in Linux prevents the user from having access to the kernel. That is kind of the point of Linux.
Edit to add; did you honestly think you'd just discovered something hundreds of development studios and hundreds of thousands of individual game developers haven't been able to figure out?
Like, really?
I mean, if there is a solution to this, it isn't in something as basic as a daemon...
nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith.
I actually agree - at least from my part.
I dont debate on good faith, I debate on logic.
When you are debating with logic, you don't also need to be debating on gold faith. "Good faith" is being fair, open and honest. If all I am doing is debating logic, it is open and honest by default, meaning the only thing missing is "fair".
If you come up against someone debating using logic and find their discussion to be unfair, that is simply because the logic of the situation is against you.
Instead of complaining that they arent acting in gold faith, perhaps consider logic next time.
nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith.
I actually agree - at least from my part.
I dont debate on good faith, I debate on logic.
When you are debating with...
Holy lordy you really are one hell of a cracker Noaani.
I've only ever met 1 person in real life that had their feelings mixed up with the notion of "facts and logic" as you are presenting here. They were a special breed of person i must say.
Your response here is a CLASSIC example of bad faith
You KNOW what I mean by "bad faith", BUT you choose to represent it as if i were hoping or believing in something as if that idea was a nebulous deity.
You then proceed to "counter" me not on the core technical argument i brought up, but your invented misconception of faith.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how the windows kernel is more secure for gaming.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how it's easier to cheat on linux.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how modifying the linux kernel for game cheating is better/worse than writing a windows kernel level driver for the same ends.
You haven't displayed any technical understanding of what even the kernel is.
You haven't presented evidence for many of the claims you make... granted my brain gets smoother by the second trying to read through your posts so I might have missed some.
But sure, lets rebut on misrepresenting some words. That'll show me. I really feel my place now.
I implore you from my position of diminished stature.... try do answer at least *some* of the technical questions, or at least link to stats about cheating on linux, or specifically *how* cheating would be worse beyond this nebulous "but the kernel..."
nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith.
I actually agree - at least from my part.
I dont debate on good faith, I debate on logic.
When you are debating with...
Holy lordy you really are one hell of a cracker Noaani.
I've only ever met 1 person in real life that had their feelings mixed up with the notion of "facts and logic" as you are presenting here.
The problem is, I want to see Linux be more widely adopted.
If I were arguing my feelings, I'd be arguing that all developers should develop for Linux.
I implore you from my position of diminished stature.... try do answer at least *some* of the technical questions, or at least link to stats about cheating on linux, or specifically *how* cheating would be worse beyond this nebulous "but the kernel..."
Why?
Can you not use google?
It is kind of basic stuff. Look at Wine - its basically Windows API in Linux right - but because it's so easy to patch, a user can make it behave in vairous ways (such as telling DirectX to render buildings as transparent). While this is technically possible to do in Windows, it is both MUCH harder for the user to do, and also is far easier for anti-cheat software to detect (whitelisting known good hashes).
Again, this is basic stuff and shouldn't need to be explained to anyone wanting to be a part of a discussion on Linux.
I'm wondering if you mistakenly think i am saying that all Linux users cheat. That isn't what I am saying at all - I am saying that if Linux were supported, all cheaters would use Linux.
Also love the argument "nobody plays on Linux, thus we don't need to consider it", what a classic!
@nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith. All I've asked Intrepid is to not deliberately block linux, but these guys carry on as if allowing linux players is going to open the gates to hell. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
Everyone thinks they know best on forums. I jump in threads more to let the devs know what I am looking for as a backer. I only engage enough to make my point and move on. Nice to see your doing much the same When Valve drops a fully supported Steam Os outside the Steam Deck. I will be making the jump to full Linux gaming. There are enough games out there that support proton that I will just happily support companies that do just that and walk away from the rest
Everyone thinks they know best on forums. I jump in threads more to let the devs know what I am looking for as a backer. I only engage enough to make my point and move on.
I'm almost the exact opposite. I assume Intrepid don't need my input oj most matters - as even the things various developers ask for input on, it usually just end up being the way the game developer would have done it anyway. Asking for inout is usually just an illusionary tactic.
Rather, what I tend to do on the forums is temper other posters expectation. Going over a few of my recent posts, someone says they thing the node history record system will use the scribe crafting class, I'll point out that this will likely not be the case. Someone says they think 64 classes is great, I'll point iut to expect 8 classes with 8 variants each. Someone wants the game ro run on Linux, I'll point out that we shouldn't expdct that as Linux is inherently less secure from a game developers perspective.
The fact that I often pour metaphorical cold water over peoples ideas is why I often end up in protracted debates.
When Valve drops a fully supported Steam Os outside the Steam Deck. I will be making the jump to full Linux gaming. There are enough games out there that support proton that I will just happily support companies that do just that and walk away from the rest
There are indeed plenty of games that support Linux - almost all single player and/or casual games do, to an extent.
If that is enough in terms of gaming for you, then yeah, Linux is all good.
i really hope the anticheat is compatible with proton. if its EAC, just tick the box please. its so difficult to find a proper answer on these forums when searching as each post is full of clueless linux haters derailing the conversation.
i really hope the anticheat is compatible with proton. if its EAC, just tick the box please. its so difficult to find a proper answer on these forums when searching as each post is full of clueless linux haters derailing the conversation.
I mean, the answer has been posted in many threads.
There is no plan for Linux support at this time.
As to clueless people in regards to Linux - that would be the person that things just ticking the box for EAC doesn't mean anything. If there wasn't a reason to not tick that box, they wouldn't have it as an option - EAC would just work on Linux as it does Windows. The reason it is a check box, however, is because there are implications and considerations to make with it - namely that EAC is still easy to get around on Linux unless you simply don't let the game run on Linux.
i really hope the anticheat is compatible with proton. if its EAC, just tick the box please. its so difficult to find a proper answer on these forums when searching as each post is full of clueless linux haters derailing the conversation.
I mean, the answer has been posted in many threads.
There is no plan for Linux support at this time.
As to clueless people in regards to Linux - that would be the person that things just ticking the box for EAC doesn't mean anything. If there wasn't a reason to not tick that box, they wouldn't have it as an option - EAC would just work on Linux as it does Windows. The reason it is a check box, however, is because there are implications and considerations to make with it - namely that EAC is still easy to get around on Linux unless you simply don't let the game run on Linux.
There absolutely is more to it than just ticking a box lol people don't realize what actually goes into enabling it properly. I get that some people would be okay with Intrepid just enabling it and letting whatever happens happen but that isn't how businesses work and really no software company should ever release something like that. To do it properly would mean testing the game thoroughly to make sure there are no compatibility issues on Linux, that there are no new exploits that might be possible, making sure the compatibility doesn't break with updates, and more. It adds a huge amount of work outside of just checking a box for them to do it correctly without potential backlash if something does go wrong. The only people parroting the "checking a box" crap are those that have no idea how production software releases actually work or how they're tested, updated, and maintained.
The ONLY time I fire up Windows is when I am gaming. I use Linux for everything else. If I could get the 'new' games to run on Linux (with the performance of running on Windows) then I would kick Windows to the curb once and for all. Would absolutely LOVE to see AoC run natively on Linux but I doubt it'll ever happen and that's a shame.
Comments
Bueller…?
Wrong. 100% wrong. What they have done with Linux and proton support has so many people building full Linux desktops to game. You can right now install Steam OS on a desktop and start gaming.
Also Valve will be releasing the full support Steam OS for the public as well. Becouse of Valve so many windows exe copies of the game just straight up run on Linux. Supporting Linux is now coming down to just supporting proton.
genuine question: why would you install steam os on a pc if you want to play video games and you already have windows
Windows has held a place no one has been able to replace. MS is turning Windows more and more into being about making you and your data the product. The saying goes "In business when you get something for free, you are the product" You would be shocked how much Windows has changed since you get to upgrade for free and not for the good.
Comes down to just having another option in the end. Linux is a open platform and that has many good things that go with it and some bad.
Cool.
How does any of that address the objective fact that Linux is easier to cheat on, and harder to detect cheating on?
Because that was my main point in relation to competitive games.
Until Linux allows software in use to block user access to the Linux kernel, Linux will not be something developers of actually competitive games really want to support.
This is something that would have to be Linux-wide, and the developers working on the Linux kernel simply wont allow for anything like that. For better or worse, Windows puts the wants and needs of the software first, while Linux puts the wants and needs of the user first. This very fundamental fact is both why some people love Linux, and why some software will never be ported there.
I mean, Valve almost didn't support it with CS2. The development team of the game itself didnt want to, but their hand was forced (by Gabe himself, if my information is correct).
Anti cheat software is 100% a problem on lunix. I also don't think that's a valid reason to not support it. Anti cheat software developers will start working on ways to make this work, when it's worth their time.
You are close to being right here.
The one thing you have wrong is that the next step is not from anti-cheat software developers, nor game developers. It is Linux developers that need to take that next step.
As long as the user has better access to the kernel than the software, you cant have functional anti-cheat software.
Since most Linux development decisions are made by software engineers, this is something that is almost guranteed to never happen. Software engineers don't generally see value in limiting user access. Since this is only really a change that competitive games would need, the general concensus seems to be that Linux users can just play the many non-competitive games that are available, and retain full kernel access.
I actually agree that this is the right choice for Linux, as user access to everything is kind of the point.However, this is the change that needs to be made in order for competitive games to consider Linux - which is to say that competitive games probably shouldnt ever be played on Linux.
A deamon that could be responsible for that level of access. Linux adds and removes them as needed. Stop playing games it would not be needed. Start playing and your gtg.
Who wudda thunk....
BUT BUT.... WIndOwS KerNeL sO sECUrE...
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/windows-hardware/drivers/gettingstarted/writing-a-very-small-kmdf--driver
Also love the argument "nobody plays on Linux, thus we don't need to consider it", what a classic!
@nanfoodle , you're not debating people who approach this topic with good faith. All I've asked Intrepid is to not deliberately block linux, but these guys carry on as if allowing linux players is going to open the gates to hell. You cannot reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into.
It literally couldn't.
A daemon is a process that the user doesnt have direct control over, this is probably why your quick google search made you think this could do what i am talking about.
The problem is, a daemon is still just a process running on top of the OS kernel. If the user has access to the kernel underneath the daemon, it doesnt matter that the user cant directly interact with said daemon.
Nothing in Linux prevents the user from having access to the kernel. That is kind of the point of Linux.
Edit to add; did you honestly think you'd just discovered something hundreds of development studios and hundreds of thousands of individual game developers haven't been able to figure out?
Like, really?
I mean, if there is a solution to this, it isn't in something as basic as a daemon...
I actually agree - at least from my part.
I dont debate on good faith, I debate on logic.
When you are debating with logic, you don't also need to be debating on gold faith. "Good faith" is being fair, open and honest. If all I am doing is debating logic, it is open and honest by default, meaning the only thing missing is "fair".
If you come up against someone debating using logic and find their discussion to be unfair, that is simply because the logic of the situation is against you.
Instead of complaining that they arent acting in gold faith, perhaps consider logic next time.
Holy lordy you really are one hell of a cracker Noaani.
I've only ever met 1 person in real life that had their feelings mixed up with the notion of "facts and logic" as you are presenting here. They were a special breed of person i must say.
Your response here is a CLASSIC example of bad faith
You KNOW what I mean by "bad faith", BUT you choose to represent it as if i were hoping or believing in something as if that idea was a nebulous deity.
You then proceed to "counter" me not on the core technical argument i brought up, but your invented misconception of faith.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how the windows kernel is more secure for gaming.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how it's easier to cheat on linux.
You still haven't ACTUALLY addressed how modifying the linux kernel for game cheating is better/worse than writing a windows kernel level driver for the same ends.
You haven't displayed any technical understanding of what even the kernel is.
You haven't presented evidence for many of the claims you make... granted my brain gets smoother by the second trying to read through your posts so I might have missed some.
But sure, lets rebut on misrepresenting some words. That'll show me. I really feel my place now.
I implore you from my position of diminished stature.... try do answer at least *some* of the technical questions, or at least link to stats about cheating on linux, or specifically *how* cheating would be worse beyond this nebulous "but the kernel..."
The problem is, I want to see Linux be more widely adopted.
If I were arguing my feelings, I'd be arguing that all developers should develop for Linux.
Why?
Can you not use google?
It is kind of basic stuff. Look at Wine - its basically Windows API in Linux right - but because it's so easy to patch, a user can make it behave in vairous ways (such as telling DirectX to render buildings as transparent). While this is technically possible to do in Windows, it is both MUCH harder for the user to do, and also is far easier for anti-cheat software to detect (whitelisting known good hashes).
Again, this is basic stuff and shouldn't need to be explained to anyone wanting to be a part of a discussion on Linux.
I'm wondering if you mistakenly think i am saying that all Linux users cheat. That isn't what I am saying at all - I am saying that if Linux were supported, all cheaters would use Linux.
Everyone thinks they know best on forums. I jump in threads more to let the devs know what I am looking for as a backer. I only engage enough to make my point and move on. Nice to see your doing much the same
Rather, what I tend to do on the forums is temper other posters expectation. Going over a few of my recent posts, someone says they thing the node history record system will use the scribe crafting class, I'll point out that this will likely not be the case. Someone says they think 64 classes is great, I'll point iut to expect 8 classes with 8 variants each. Someone wants the game ro run on Linux, I'll point out that we shouldn't expdct that as Linux is inherently less secure from a game developers perspective.
The fact that I often pour metaphorical cold water over peoples ideas is why I often end up in protracted debates. There are indeed plenty of games that support Linux - almost all single player and/or casual games do, to an extent.
If that is enough in terms of gaming for you, then yeah, Linux is all good.
I mean, the answer has been posted in many threads.
There is no plan for Linux support at this time.
As to clueless people in regards to Linux - that would be the person that things just ticking the box for EAC doesn't mean anything. If there wasn't a reason to not tick that box, they wouldn't have it as an option - EAC would just work on Linux as it does Windows. The reason it is a check box, however, is because there are implications and considerations to make with it - namely that EAC is still easy to get around on Linux unless you simply don't let the game run on Linux.
There absolutely is more to it than just ticking a box lol people don't realize what actually goes into enabling it properly. I get that some people would be okay with Intrepid just enabling it and letting whatever happens happen but that isn't how businesses work and really no software company should ever release something like that. To do it properly would mean testing the game thoroughly to make sure there are no compatibility issues on Linux, that there are no new exploits that might be possible, making sure the compatibility doesn't break with updates, and more. It adds a huge amount of work outside of just checking a box for them to do it correctly without potential backlash if something does go wrong. The only people parroting the "checking a box" crap are those that have no idea how production software releases actually work or how they're tested, updated, and maintained.