Quoting: nnohonsjnhtsylayIsn't wayland supposed to be forward-thinking instead of choosing decades old solutions that are no longer the best solution? But besides that, why should nvidia implement something that is guaranteed to get replaced anyways?

See point B and C.

Quoting: nnohonsjnhtsylayIt's legacy because every modern graphics api is designed with explicit sync in mind (such as vulkan) and every other operating system uses explicit sync.

That depends on your definition of "modern".
OpenGL is still actively maintained and in use by basically all Linux supporting software.
Indeed games don't use it, but games generally don't actively support Linux, are at the bleeding edge of graphics development and more willing to waste developer time configuring the explicit sinc.

Also you've a much lower view of legacy support than I do.
I argue that legacy support is good for sustainability, marketability and competition.
Sometimes dropping legacy support can be needed to move forward, but it shouldn't be a goal on itself.
Remember backwards compatibility is much easier than forward compatibility.
If I write software I can't predict what ridiculous new environments will be developed, but I can consider what was developed in the past and help them.

Nvidia has the fullest right to drop support for old software, but it will make a lot of people's life a lot more uncomfortable and they will complain and buy less Nvidia stuff, because they want to run their stuff.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Luke_Nukem

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Luke_Nukem> deepest catalog of software enablement across the CPU, GPU and NPU

On Windows mostly I bet.

Actually Intel's Linux support is quite good.
Open drivers, lots of Linux clients and active(proprietary) collaboration in Kernel development.
Also the large AI players all run Linux, so making AI stuff windows exclusive is asking for problems if you're not microsoft.

Yeah sure. But I'm talking "software enablement". That's quite different to driver stacks.

Of their non-hardware bound software 55 support Microsoft Windows* and 49 Linux.This can be found on their website. [External Link]

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tohur

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: tohurI would trust such a feature if it was opensource.. for instance if a DE on Linux implemented this feature I would use it without batting an eye considering I could just go look at the source code to see what its doing and mostly likely use my OWN ai models to boot.. only way folks gona feel conforble using this from Microsoft is if they opensourced it.. To be frank it should be a LAW features such as this must be opensourced regardless if the OS is or not.

I wouldn't
The data is still stored on the computer and made readily accessible.
A malicious actor on my system(this can just be chrome looking for delicious data) can take it and run with it.

And thats on you not the DE. but fact is this is Linux if a DE did implement such a feature 1.) you wouldn't be required to use such a feature. 2 .) it would 99% be a opt in not opt out. 3.) it would most likely be encrypted

Actually I think encryption wouldn't be a feature if it were open source.
Secret management is important in open source security considerations and the secret would in this case be stored on the same place as the data.
The rest of your points are convincing and yes this's certainly on me.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: tohurI would trust such a feature if it was opensource.. for instance if a DE on Linux implemented this feature I would use it without batting an eye considering I could just go look at the source code to see what its doing and mostly likely use my OWN ai models to boot.. only way folks gona feel conforble using this from Microsoft is if they opensourced it.. To be frank it should be a LAW features such as this must be opensourced regardless if the OS is or not.

I wouldn't
The data is still stored on the computer and made readily accessible.
A malicious actor on my system(this can just be chrome looking for delicious data) can take it and run with it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: slaapliedje

Quoting: Mambo

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: StoneColdSpider

Quoting: GuestSo, let me understand.

I've this game on native Linux on steam and after the update i will not have the possibility to download it anymore?

Does this feel right to anyone?

Welcome to the state of gaming in 2024........ Over priced DLC........ Microtransactions out the warzoo..... Out of control in game gambling........ Gaming as a service....... Changing account requirements after purchase........ And now...... Changing OS support after purchase....... What a time to be a live......

Quoting: jams3223I am blacklisting this studio, and I'll never buy a game from them.

Targem Games has made...... The list...... I will do doing the same.......

This is Valve enforcing game updates vis Steam.
Blaze Rush is a lightweight title that works on an old netbook which is unable to run Vulkan, unable to run Proton via dxvk, I don't want even imagine what would happen via wined3d.

They are reducing my possibility to play it, and I've paid for it.

Instead, people pirating games are FREE from all of that, really, this time shame on you, Valve.

Steam supports beta branches, which are often used to keep around old versions before disruptive changes. That publisher should still take the responsibility and face demands for refunds though.

Think this option is on the developers though, right?

The game is developed by Russians, maybe they are being forced to add in a rootkit, which won't work on Linux and mac, so they're just ditching those platforms?

Nah, any government enforced rootkit will support Linux and Mac, unless it is target specific.
Basically all journalists, rich businessmen and activists use Mac.
Basically all valuable servers run Linux.
The low level Iphone jailbreak bugs mostly come from discovered government malware.
Against Linux source code poisoning is popular.
"Write your first rootkit" is a training exercise for mediocre kernel developers.
Just, because ransomware writers don't have standards and are willing to settle for Windows, because it has the less capable admins and has the security of an open door doesn't mean governments don't.
Edit:
In this rant I'm assuming they can get super user permissions from their users, but with the "anti-cheat" claim for a native game this could work.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

[quote=Lofty]

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

Shadowy implies lack of transparency, which has really improved over the years.
The term forces dehumanizes them.
The "shadowy forces" call themselves "data brokers".
I would call them "privacy salesmen/salespeople(reliant on who I'm talking to)".

That having said. I'm not opposed to the term "privacy nut".
I've no issue with being the crazy one and it does get the point across.

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

Shadowy implies lack of transparency, which has really improved over the years.

Has it ? I mean i know there are laws around data protection such as GDPR. At least from a European perspective i could mostly agree. But Microsoft is an American company.

Aha, but to do business in Europe it still has to report who it sells and provides, which data to and to keep it a little scalable they will try to keep these pieces of information the same for europe and the rest of the globe(especially the first time they had to publish this, because making a special "europe" exception takes time) and the same is true for California.
Also thanks to the Snowden leaks the USA government more often publishes(often due to court cases) on the subject. Also there are nowadays more external monitoring methods.
Also the EU thanks to Snowden leaks once in a while get forced to publish parts of its own espionage through court cases.

Quoting: Lofty

The term forces dehumanizes them.

Forces implies a large gathering of people committed to the same objective. Are we 'dehumanizing' an invading army by calling them a 'force' ?

Okay here you're just right, my excuses for the mistake.

Quoting: Lofty

The "shadowy forces" call themselves "data brokers".
I would call them "privacy salesmen/salespeople(reliant on who I'm talking to)".

'privacy salesmen' should not even be a thing,i would call them immoral shysters. It should not be a job to sell people's private information without consent at the level proposed here.

[quote=Lofty]
Well yeah that's why I prefer the term. It gets the point across without sounding like an accusation of conspiracy beyond normal business transactions.

Quoting: Lofty

That having said. I'm not opposed to the term "privacy nut".
I've no issue with being the crazy one and it does get the point across.

So long as it's not used to dehumanize people who care about privacy or minimize the risks involved, hushing people into silence.

Meh, many badges of honor in the past began as a way to dismiss owning up to it is often more effective. The term jesuit was meant to call them traitors, Cavalier was at first meant as an insult, Anarchist started as an insult it, conservative started as an insult.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: wvstolzing... so I take it that plaintext indexing & search already works flawlessly on windows, that they're now expanding their horizons to indexing images, & user actions and the like?

... and that the promised indices won't take up half of the user's boot drive, and perpetually occupy half of their cpu & ram? (which of course they won't because all the processing and storage will be 'in the cloud')

Actually they promised to keep it local(for now), so I hope you've a really large drive, because it'll contain a video of its entire existence.

Edit:
Also they promised to keep it encrypted, so it will take up even more space than a normal video of it existence.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanual

Quoting: LoudTechieWhat mcirosoft didn't disclose with their TPM requirement is that breaking bitlocker of the TPM they required at first(hardware based) is so easy that a teacher suggested it as a project in my first year of embedded software engineering. This is the relevant trick. [External Link].
Doesn't work for fTPM, but that only got allowed when it turned out that gamers with game pcs can be very loud.

Huh. That's pretty interesting. I guess the real professionals might have a suitcase full of these pogo pin sniffers for common laptop models, ready to disassemble the laptop at a moment's notice.

My desktop computer from 2017 has fTPM. Let me check if my Dell business laptop from 2022, which came with Windows 11, has fTPM.

<Rebooting>...

Edit:I have no clue. It doesn't tell me in the BIOS whether I have a fTPM, it just has the option to enable Secure Boot.

If you can't enable/disable your TPM in the BIOS you've no fTPM. If you can you do.(f stands for firmware)
EDIT:
This probably means you've hardware TPM for such a modern device.

Rant:
For some reason the advised practice in the security community is that for drm like activities dedicated hardware is most effective, but as far as I've encountered so far this is complete and utter bull.
Nintendo did and does it and failed.
Intel doesn't and succeeds(Intel ME)
By binding it to existing devices changing it is more intermingled with stuff the attacker doesn't want to touch.
Yes giving it more permissions helps, but if you integrate it in the firmware of something important it's harder to take away.

Edit:
Looked it up:
You've both, but the hardware TPM is probably the used one.

Bussiness laptop had TPM before consumer ones, because physical attacks are much more dangerous for owners of laptops who aren't also the user, such as businesses.
I assumed your laptop was new when you got it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: Eike

Quoting: Lofty

I'm not even what you may call a "privacy nut".

Although this is a common turn of phrase. It's time we removed the association of conspiracy theorist with a human right to privacy.

I agree.

Quoting: LoftyIn the early day's people were far more trusting of technology and saw it as largely altruistic and a benefit to society (which with opensource it still can be) but invariably the usual shadowy forces do their thing and here we are.

[bolding by me]

... but this does sound... conspirational.

Maybe they aren't out in public stood on a box selling you data viewable on a large screen but im perfectly happy to identify groups tucked away in some monolithic corporate box connected to a vast data center sharing deeply personal information about you or your loved ones to the highest bidder as shadowy forces.

To me that is the usual shadowy forces. i couldn't think of a better phrase as my "tin foil" hat is blocking the connection to my neural-link Ai brain feed.

if you cant think of a better turn of phrase then let me know.

Shadowy implies lack of transparency, which has really improved over the years.
The term forces dehumanizes them.
The "shadowy forces" call themselves "data brokers".
I would call them "privacy salesmen/salespeople(reliant on who I'm talking to)".

That having said. I'm not opposed to the term "privacy nut".
I've no issue with being the crazy one and it does get the point across.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI believe this feature requires an NPU chip. That might be a requirement for OEMs to have a Windows 11 certified computer now; I'm not sure.

What happens if someone else gets access to your device? Lost, stolen, sold (and you forgot to wipe) and so on. If you get hacked, they'll end up seeing everything, it's another major attack point. Yeah great it's stored on your device, but people and companies get broken open all the time, malicious orgs will have a real party with your data. There's plenty of other times people may end up with access to your device to think about, I'm not going to list them all of course.

This is why it's a good thing Microsoft made TPM a requirement and enabled Bitlocker by default, meaning all Windows 11 computers will be securely encrypted with Bitlocker. Even if your computer gets stolen, the hacker still needs to crack the password.

What's more concerning is malware, as once they have administrative access, the attacker will have easy access to all of your data. Stuff you wouldn't have even thought was sensitive or important.

Oh wow, that sure sounds good for your privacy doesn't it. But don't worry it "does not take snapshots of certain kinds of content, including InPrivate web browsing sessions in Microsoft Edge" and "material protected with digital rights management (DRM)" is also protected. We can't have Netflix or Disney getting annoyed with it taking a shot of that movie you watched, nope.

Microsoft would need to circumvent their own API that makes it impossible for the user to take screenshots of Netflix or Disney+. But, yeah, putting those two things together really does tell you who matters most to Microsoft.

But, how far do we trust data being fed into a black-box AI that no one can really see what it's doing huh?

Exactly zero.

What mcirosoft didn't disclose with their TPM requirement is that breaking bitlocker of the TPM they required at first(hardware based) is so easy that a teacher suggested it as a project in my first year of embedded software engineering. This is the relevant trick. [External Link].
Doesn't work for fTPM, but that only got allowed when it turned out that gamers with game pcs can be very loud.

View this comment - View article - View full comments