669
Windows 11 scores dead last in gaming performance tests against 3 Linux gaming distros
(www.notebookcheck.net)
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
669 points (87.7% liked)
Linux
48328 readers
636 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well this article is pretty disingenuous...
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
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.
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
As if the anti-cheat even worked.
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.
It also doesn't work. I know that's what the parent comment said, but it's a total scam at the company level too.
"Oh, server networking is hard to do right. Let's do it client side"
"Oh, people are cheating. Let's add anticheat"
I've developed games where the client is the source of truth, and games where it's the server. It is almost always better to do anything that will be developed for more than a few weeks serverside.
Also from an engineering perspective it makes LOADS more sense as you can apply patches to the servers instantly vs. requiring the users patch the game themselves.
Also, you can control the variables of the system it's running on.
Of course, it means when you fuck up, it affects everyone at once.
But with journaling file systems and kubernettes orchestration it's SO easy to revert changes with modern day Linux.
Oh, absolutely. I can't believe we deployed web apps on IIS for instance. What a shitshow that was. If you can run the important bits on something predictable like linux with all the serverside tools that gives you, why wouldn't you.
>client is the source of truth
>company doesn't like the clients truth
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.
Doesn't matter if it's a prerequisite
I really wish valve would make this more clear on steam store pages. It says games are "unsupported" on steam deck due to anticheat when really it should say something like "The developer of this title does not allow players using the steam deck" so that people are more aware it's not linux or valve's fault
Honestly I can't say that I miss installing rootkits with terrifying privileges just to play games. I'd rather limit the privileges games have with Flatpak etc., not give them even more.
Sure but gaming is predominantly a social pastime. Meaning that most gamers will make the trade off between installing anticheat and not playing the game their friends are all playing, much like the overwhelming majority of people will trade privacy in favor of being able to send a message to friends on Facebook.
It doesn't matter how much you value your privacy: most people don't care and never will. So without the option to give away privacy to play the latest Ubisoft game they won't be using Linux. Full stop.
Yup. People always latch on to the "Sony (it was actually on Philips, who ran the disc factory that Sony had a stake in, but that's just nitpicking) installed a rootkit on PCs in the 90s via CDs" and say about how awful that is, and they're right, then they throw that out the Window and install more advanced rootkits filled with god knows what telemetry when they install games.
Just link them this article about Genshin Impact's driver-level anti-cheat being used by a ransomware actor to kill anything that would get it the malware's way.
Yeah, what the heck Valorant. I'm not installing that.
Which anticheat is a "root kit"?
https://www.pcgamer.com/the-controversy-over-riots-vanguard-anti-cheat-software-explained/
All of them.
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?
Anti cheat = rootkit. You should not install it at all.
Once more someone who doesn't understand what the fuck a rootkit is spews their uninformed opinions on lemmy.
Damn man, I know rootkits and your comment is a rootkit!
"Any software that has admin access is a rootkit!" -this entire website
If you compromise your system with software that you don't know and potentially can introduce a backdoor (even involuntary via bugs), you have a rootkit installed.
If you don't trust it, don't install it with admin privileges. Maybe don't install it at all. Anticheat is a shady business. And mostly not owned by the company that produces the maybe trusted product to be protected.
"A rootkit is a collection of computer software, typically malicious, designed to enable access to a computer or an area of its software that is not otherwise allowed (for example, to an unauthorized user) and often masks its existence or the existence of other software."
That's the Wikipedia definition, in CompTIA Security+ the concept of the malware masking itself is quintessential to the definition of a rootkit. I hear this shit all the time from people on here who think anything that gets elevated privileges is a "rootkit" and hasn't the slightest idea what the fuck they're talking about.
"But you don't know if it could install a backdoor!"
You don't know if half the shit you install is doing that either, or is Easy Anticheat known for doing this in some official investigation? Did someone find out that Activision is deploying malware in ricochet?
If not, you're operating on suspicion that you don't harbor for other software without evidence, based purely on things you've probably just barely heard about.
You should notice that I use the word "trust". I install stuff on my servers and PCs from people who I trust. Why should I trust someone who makes an anticheat engine. Why should I have a reason to do that?
You should also understand that a kernel-level piece of code that can be updated is a very good rootkit. It contains all essential tools to modify hardware, kernel, install drivers, keyloggers etc. It satisfies the definition of "rootkit" very well.
One single piece of code is enough to be a rootkit.
Also definition by antimalware vendors:
https://www.trendmicro.com/vinfo/us/security/definition/rootkit
https://www.kaspersky.com/resource-center/definitions/what-is-rootkit
https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/sysinternals/downloads/rootkit-revealer#what-is-a-rootkit
Popular definition (e.g . Ionos):