Active deck detection that only detects game mode and wine level "kernel mode".
Clearly written by someone without relevant UNIX experience.
If it working on desktop mode doesn't get "patched" I will be pretty surprised.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Blisto

Quoting: ElamanOpiskelijaHey! I had already figured out my workaround for Tekken. Now it comes already fixed. What am I supposed to do? Actually play now?

Silly ElamanOpiskelija. Linux users don't play games. They just tinker with getting them running.

And @ElamanOpiskelija can still do that. They just need to set an extra parameter for it(120 fps/yellow trees/etc.)

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: razzeI'm still really confused by what your saying. Currently every app that gets published to flathub needs to have sources available online and have the manifest pushed to their github.

Sure, binaries are sources too, but that's actually something flathub doesn't like to see, as it mostly means no ARM builds/support, as people usually don't care to provide binaries for both.

Then everything is build on flathub bulidbot in a sandboxed/offline environment https://buildbot.flathub.org/ [External Link] so you need to grab sources first. So what you commited to your manifest, can't be changed after the fact, as you also need to provide hash sums for all downloads and they get checked - so that you can't change them after pushing the manifest.

The verification of authors of flathub packages currently work via domains, so if you install tv.kodi.Kodi and it's verified, you can be sure, that someone having access to kodi.tv is involved.

A. sorry for the late reaction. I didn't get a notification.
B. You seem to know more about the way flathub works than me, so when in doubt assume that I'm wrong.
C. According to your story they verify if something matches its git release with indeed hash checking.
D. A verification purist would argue that doesn't help for binary only releases, because for binary only releases it only proofs that the git and the flathub contain the same possible malware, but there is still no to the binary relatable claim other than the binary(which nobody, but the publisher is supposed to be able to check) over what it does.
D.1. I said "they've nothing to compare it against". With that I meant that they had
E. The work through domains is in essence trick 2.

You can be very certain that the one who uploaded your software uploaded the same stuff they uploaded on git, but what they uploaded to both is an open question for binaries.
Still this is better verification than some might think.
Most if not all of this stuff is uploaded on github and github is enough of a central party that people actively check their website for them for malware(github stars and reporting).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: LoudTechieThere's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

Not really true. The epic launcher DRM is such that games that use it won't launch if you don't start it from the epic launcher. But Legendary managed to replicate its functionality perfectly fine. And presumably without breaking the DRM since Epic is apparently aware of these projects and doesn't seem to object.

Really, wow.
Okay, apparently I'm behind on recent developments.
My excuses for the certainty with which I spoke.
It was always possible to write drm in such a way that duplication wasn't abiding and abetting, but for years drm manufacturers didn't do it.
I'm happy to see this change.

I've been reading the source code and the more I read it the more I question the legal sustainability of legendary launcher although they truly tried.
AES keys, encryption algorithm, install lock detection and paths. I've never before written a crack, but this looks to me like all the information needed to write one for Origin drm.
If it fitted the story it would at least need to explicitly contain some assymeteric cryptographic primitive and I can't find it in their really readable code.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Ehvis

Quoting: LoudTechieThere's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

Not really true. The epic launcher DRM is such that games that use it won't launch if you don't start it from the epic launcher. But Legendary managed to replicate its functionality perfectly fine. And presumably without breaking the DRM since Epic is apparently aware of these projects and doesn't seem to object.

Really, wow.
Okay, apparently I'm behind on recent developments.
My excuses for the certainty with which I spoke.
It was always possible to write drm in such a way that duplication wasn't abiding and abetting, but for years drm manufacturers didn't do it.
I'm happy to see this change.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tpau

Quoting: CalinouEA app isn't DRM-free (just like Ubisoft Connect). This means Heroic developers would have to bypass it somehow, which is unlikely to happen for many reasons.

What does DRM mean other than the game, launcher and Webservers talk with one another to see if you own the game and are allowed to start it?

It means quite a lot more. It means that the launcher checks if there're other porcesses on the system that might be listen in on their communication with the server(not always web). It means that the game checks that the game can only be started by its launcher. It means that the game checks there've been no changes to the game.

Quoting: tpauIt does not have to be bypassed, as that would be piracy, it has to be replicated like login and downloading.
Never do anything the original wouldn't do or you are getting into trouble with their owners, like ea in this case.

There's no modern form of DRM of which if you can duplicate it you can't break it and thus if you make your duplication open source you've aided and abetted anyone who breaks the DRM with all that knowledge you've made available.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: on_en_a_grosIs there any comparison between the main launchers ( heroic , lutris ect ) ex features , ease of use?

According to reddit [External Link] Lutris has better UI, but heroic better compatibility and Bottles is for people who use Linux, because they want: "pain and suffering".
A more recent reddit question [External Link] adds that NonSteamLauncher has good UI and compatibility, but misses important features like pre-tweaking and prefix handling.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Woot.
My prediction:
The device will come and contain a manjaro distro.
It will have a worse launcher and be incompatible with some steam api's.
It will be more expensive than the steamdeck.
It will have coreboot.
It will sell much worse than the steamdeck.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pete910

it seems the Manjaro Linux team have buddied up with hardware vendor Orange Pi for the Orange Pi Neo gaming handheld.

This looks familiar...

Ah, yes. Until they decide to go windows....

A large difference between Orange Pi and AYANEO is that Orange Pi has actual experience in the Linux devices market and has thus access to the required talent to make them.
What they don't have and why the device will ultimately fail is the talent to advertise in the Linux gaming space.
The device will be sold with Linux, but it will be too expensive and have a worse launcher than the steamdeck.
Also its advertisement campaign will lay too much focus on hackability, maintainability and customizability.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: damarrin

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual'm not sure if there are incentives to use the App Store over Steam. It seems like they get the same cut. I know macOS programs from the App Store tend to be gutted compared to programs distributed outside of it because of restrictions (DaVinci Resolve being one such example, Affinity Suite being another).

Well, the App Store is there on every Mac, you don't need to install it by yourself. Plus, users with iPhones will already know it's the place to get all software and Apple will actively steer people towards it. Also, IIRC, it would hide software that wouldn't run on your Mac (a simple check for OS version and 32/64 bits, nothing fancy like checking gfx card requirements).

There's a strong dislike for the built-in store on Windows AFAICT, this isn't the case on the Mac. People love it. And I'm sure devs who make software for the Mac do as well (except for the likes of Epic). After all, as we Linux users all know, hunting the web for programs and downloading installers is the silliest thing ever.

Plus, "tend to be gutted" is much too strong of a statement. Yes, software will need to be modified in some instances (like years ago LibreOffice not being able to be on there because of their Java dependecy, IDK if this has changed or not), but I'd say the vast majority is made with with Mac and App Store in mind from the start.

As for Steam, Valve doesn't need the Mac and Apple doesn't need Valve.

I can only speak for myself: I tried to use the App Store, but when I realized the functionality I needed to use in the software just didn't exist seemingly because of some weird App Store regulations, I gave up on it. I had a sample size of 2 programs, and they were both lacking something from memory. Of course, I didn't use it at all after that, so I can't say anything for other programs. I say this as someone who used an iPhone for 10 years and macOS for a little longer. It also doesn't have a great selection compared to say, homebrew. I think this is partly because open source programs aren't allowed on the App Store.[^1]

But in principle I agree with all your points. What better marketing strategy is there than to have your program displayed in the App Store, directly accessible compared to trying to find the developer's website? That's certainly reason enough to list your program in the App Store.

[^1]: I've tried to look into the situation. The developer for Raivo OTP claims the app can't be open source because Apple won't accept it. The FSF said 10 years ago that only the GPL/LGPL family of licenses weren't accepted. I don't really know what's going on here, but I'm assuming open source programs aren't allowed for some reason.

Apple allows programs published under(some) open source licenses in their appstore, but the rules of the appstore are written so incompatible with the open source principles that all versions of those programs that are actually on the app store aren't open source.
Apple wants all developers to actively forbid some forms of usage of their programs. This doesn't match the 0th software freedom or the open source principles.
The gpl is incompatible with it, because it forces all distributors of the code to allow their users to do whatever they want with the program.

As for why your choice of homebrew in the appstore is so bad. The reasons for that are more holistic. The smaller the developer the less resources they can put toward complying with store policies. Apple has the strictest store policies for general purpose computers(yes, your smart tv has stricter rules, but it's trying to be only a tv).
Same reason exists for Xbox(comparably strict rules, just not for general purpose), Playstation and to a lesser extend Nintendo Switch(yes, Nintendo is actually the least bad of the lot).
PC users just don't know how good they have it with their relatively open platform.
Microsoft has failed multiple times to cripple sideloading, thanks to interference of USA regulators Microsoft has to allow installing alternate OS'es and browsers, Intel had to allow AMD to compete, because IBM build that level of openess in it from the start.
Sure X86 is still proprietary, replacing your OS is hard, IntelME, etc., but compared to anything else on the market it's a breath of fresh air.
It's even possible to build a completely open source laptop.

View this comment - View article - View full comments