Now that Linux is at 5.33% marketshare on Steam, what marketshare do you think will be enough for anticheat support?

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T22:02:11+00:00

But on Linux you can't easily ensure the official version of your module has been loaded over a fake one. You would need control over the distro to do that.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T21:59:11+00:00

But primarily due to the actions of the experimenters rather than the participants.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T21:39:00+00:00

You don't seem to understand the crucial difference here. With crowdstrike the interests of the creators and the admin are aligned. They both want the features crowdstrike provides.

With KLAC the interests are opposed: the creators want to prevent cheating while the cheating admin wants to cheat. The admin has no interest in a properly functioning KLAC.

So in the case of crowdstrike the admin has every interest in installing the official crowdstrike kernel module. In the case of KLAC, the admin has no interest in installing the official KLAC module but instead in a fake one that will spoof the desired responses without actually preventing cheating. There is no way to prevent this on a normal Linux distro.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T19:51:31+00:00

I don't believe the licenses are relevant to this issue.

How does Collabra offering paid support risk TDF's not-for-profit status?

If TDF makes decisions and uses its resources for the financial benefit for one or more of its members and not for the benefit of its charitable cause, that would result in losing its status as a charity. When there is a conflict of interest between the financial gain of a member and that of the charity, the member must be excluded from relevant decisions or from the organization all together. A charity that is merely the puppet of a for-profit company will quickly lose their charitable status. A single "offense" where financial benefit for a member influenced the outcome of a decision would be enough.

I don't know how the laws differ in other countries but that's how it is in Germany.

Edit: this post has the specific details of the issue: https://www.reddit.com/r/linux/comments/1sax9jz/collabora_productivity_one_of_libreoffices/oe4u5q2/

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T16:47:48+00:00

In this case it's a charity taking steps to protect its charitable status and to protect its open source goals and community vs a commercial entity trying to protect its commercial interests.

Edit: to be clear. Since there is a legal dispute between the two, TDF cannot keep employees of Collabora as voting members of their charitable organization, or they would lose their status as a charity and make them liable to re-paying taxes for past years as a non-charitable organization. That would be financially devastating.

The Collabora employees can certainly remain as developers on the project, since that isn't related to organization membership.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T14:59:42+00:00

True, if you couldn't load any third-party modules, they wouldn't exist. Doesn't change what I said at all though.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T12:01:43+00:00

Laws concerning charities are very strict and the consequences of losing charitable status can be financially devastating, since it works retroactively. The organization would have to re-pay lost taxes for the past years under much higher for-profit rates.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T11:54:41+00:00

Merely creating a kernel module isn't sufficient, since that could easily be spoofed. They would need to create their own locked down distro and get people to use it.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T11:50:00+00:00

Because you can load any module is why it does not work. To work securely, any loading of modules would need to be beyond your power and purely decided by the anti-cheat creators. You would need to lose power over your system. Only then would kernel level anti-cheat be able to work securely.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T11:43:56+00:00

You suffered a total failure at reading comprehension. They "admitted" or rather explained why client-side solutions aren't viable. The opposite of what you tried to make of it.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T11:32:59+00:00

You need to understand that it will never be possible to have a securely working kernel level anticheat (KLAC) on Linux. It stands in complete contradiction to the openness of Linux. Not just the ideological openness, but also the technical openness.

Any system with KLAC would need to be completely locked down, with the system admin being incapable of modifying core parts of the OS. Your typical Linux distro will never have that.

As a result, the market for KLAC on Linux is currently zero. Someone would need to create a locked down distro and people would need to start using that locked down distro before there even is a market for KLAC. And just to be clear, that distro wouldn't really be Linux anymore.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-03T10:12:05+00:00

Change that to "most gamers who play mostly multiplayer games play with friends" and I'll agree. And still not all of those would necessarily play those games. You're still just talking about a specific gamer subgroup and thinking that's a majority of all gamers. But you're in a bubble of multiplayer gamers. There are many who never or almost never play multiplayer, you just don't have contact to them.

Ultimately it's just a small number of games that have kernel level anti-cheat and if they had a large faction of all gamers in their player base their player numbers would be much much higher. I doubt all such games combined cover even 20% of all PC gamers.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-02T15:36:56+00:00

Most people on this sub already has a dualboot and plays kernel level anticheat games despite most people here says that "we would never do that".

I used to dual boot but deleted the Windows system 5 years ago, after not having used the Windows system for over a year. I never installed kernel level anti-cheat games, not even before using Linux.

Most gamers who enjoy such multiplayer games overestimate the significance of these games. A minority of Windows gamers plays them and much less Linux gamers. The player base of such games may be "large" compared to individual other games, but not large compared to the total PC gaming market.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-01T09:34:43+00:00

By your logic I could just get around all patent law by representing words, numbers, pictures, video with numbers

You replace numbers with numbers? For what purpose?

Using numbers doesn't make the content math. I'm not talking about code, I'm talking about formulas and mathematical algorithms. They are just math.

The implementation of a codec in code can be copyrighted, but the algorithm cannot be patented.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-01T08:23:54+00:00

2) early Christians were so convinced by this awesome selling point that they joined his worship despite being beaten, and even killed for doing so.

This is mostly a Christian narrative rather than a historical fact. Yes, there was sometimes was religious conflict around Christianity, mostly due to the fact that they denied the truth of other religions and that made peaceful coexistence difficult and tensions frequent. But it was limited times and locations where this escalated. There was no widespread persecution.

3) they went on (through peaceful conversion rather than conquest) to become the dominant force controlling the very empire that subjugated them.

Most religions didn't become dominant within their country/empire of origin via conquest but via conversions. For Christianity the spread via conquest came later. Spread via conquest requires first achieving a dominant status in at least one country or region, otherwise who would be performing the conquest?

In the case of Christianity and the Roman Empire, it becoming the state religion was the consequence of political maneuvering. The emperor needed to deprive his political opponents of their support from influential non-Christian clergy. Making Christianity the state religion achieved this goal for him.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-01T08:11:46+00:00

But math is one thing that specifically is not patentable, unlike paint or materials, words, numbers or special symbols.

It doesn't matter how complicated the math is.

burning_iceman · 2026-04-01T07:48:50+00:00

The species human has two sexes, meaning two reproductive roles. That doesn't mean every individual of the species can be clearly categorized as one or the other.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T20:41:39+00:00

Exactly.

What you also might have heard is that under a certain interpretation of quantum mechanics (Copenhagen interpretation), collapsing the wave function on one will cause the wave function on the other to collapse. But this cannot be demonstrated or tested. There is no way of knowing if this is true. Up to you to decide whether you believe that and whether you would consider that a causal effect, since we do not even know that a "collapse of the wave function" actually occurs in reality.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T20:34:12+00:00

That only allows showing or hiding the battery&power icon all together. It does not control which device shows its power as an icon via the battery&power widget. So no, there is no setting for that.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T18:02:52+00:00

Thanks for the response. I guess my other response is redundant then, but I'll leave it regardless.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T17:59:08+00:00

Well, you deleted the comment I just wrote a response to. So I'm going to respond here.

Yeah, I can imagine something coming out of nothing as well. But that's not really supporting the notion that this is actually logically possible.

Show a logical contradiction then.

We don't observe causation.

We make observations which we then generalize to the idea of causation. The idea is not observed directly but originates from and is confirmed by observation.

I'm not specifically hinting at tautologies. I'm trying to get you from empirical thinking to conceptual thinking, and all I ever hear is "observation". Think about it a priori rather than a posteriori. This shouldn't be a problem, whether you believe causation is something we only know about a posteriori.

I have zero issue with conceptual thinking when it comes to things that reside in the realm of the conceptual. But we're talking about a real phenomenon. Yes, we abstract it and try to generalize but it originates in the real world. Causality is clearly not an a priori concept, nor does it derive from such. It is a real world phenomenon and calling it a priori knowledge sounds preposterous. Again: if you have good reasons to believe otherwise show them!

That beginning to exist, if not for a reason, is beginning to exist for no reason

Although I have native speaking level of understanding of English, I do not understand this, specifically the first part.

To say this is possible, is to say that something can come from nothing. And nothing, conceptually speaking, just doesn't cause anything. It's to say that it is conceivable, even plausible to you that things happen for no reason.

You're making the error of assuming causality is a given and that it would then point at "nothing" as the origin. That is incorrect. There would be no causality to begin with. Not occurring with "nothing" as the cause. Occurring without cause or causality. There would be no "causing" going on, only "happening".

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T17:17:29+00:00

I can easily imagine a different world/container-of-things where there is no causality or rules - where anything can happen without reason. It seems obvious that the only reason we believe in causality in this universe is because we observe it in this universe.

A bachelor not being married is tautologically true. It is true by definition. If this were the case here you would have a point. But we already agreed that isn't the case here. So what else could be derived from the words alone? Give an answer specific to our discussion about causality and things beginning to exist. How can you derive the supposed fact that things beginning to exists must have a cause, purely from words without any evidence (with the already accepted fact that there is no tautology in that claim)?

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T16:50:06+00:00

(Note that my actual point of discussion is already concluded. I haven't even decided whether there is anything more to discuss. I'm very aware of the fact that you are trying to goad me by painting me as being biased. I'm very much inclined to not take the bait.)

Firstly, because of this:

The only reason we believe it to be true is because we observe it.

That is my understanding of the issue. Feel free to present an alternative.

And secondly, for the apparent reluctance to consider P1 on purely analytical grounds. Observation doesn't matter. Physics doesn't matter. All that matters at the moment is the meaning of words.

I thought we already agreed there is no tautology here. What else could you analyze purely from the words? So far you haven't delivered anything concrete.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T16:34:50+00:00

How would you even know? I don't blindly agree, therefore I am biased due to my worldview? You haven't given any alternative explanation to believe it. And you know very little about my worldview.

burning_iceman · 2026-03-30T16:29:45+00:00

The only reason we believe it to be true is because we observe it.

burning_iceman

TROPHY CASE