Quoting: dubigrasu

Quoting: Pyretic

Quoting: dubigrasuHow good is Vanguard compared with other AC software out there? Is that efficient on Valorant?

If you're talking about performance, Valorant runs fine with it on.

If you're talking about security, you can circumvent the anti-virus (and most other kernel-level software) with a Windows VM.

I was asking how efficient is in terms of combating cheating in whatever form. Is Valorant cheaters free, or at least is cheating significantly reduced compared with other AC software, so much so that is worth (for Riot) the public backlash?
And as a side note, what other game (if any) is using it?

Security is hard to measure(especially for security through obscurity products maybe protected by the "effective measures" clause)
There are free and openly accessible cheats of Valorant.
Cheats have existed, since the beta.
There appear to be no other games using it.
Vanguard appears to have decent VM detection(circumventable, but requiring at least some research).

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: LoudTechie

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: LoudTechieThere're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

i kinda of understand what you said, but can you explain it a bit more?

to be more specific the specific relationship between companies and foss.

Although Grigi isn't fully wrong it's deeper than that and management isn't the only issue.

At first I'm going to be a little bit generalizing, but I promise the point will be clear.
Further on I will give a little bit more refinement.
Foss and companies like each other, because they provide each other with tools to achieve their goals.
Foss and companies don't like each other, because they actively fight each other when their goals don't match.
Foss wants computers to be a sandbox where everyone can play as long as they don't actively hurt each other.
Companies want to be so much better than the others at working with computers that people are going to pay them to do the things they do well.
In the basic this isn't a problem, but in practice they sometimes clash.
For example:
When 5 billion people are all active with computers there is a serious chance that there is someone else who might be just as good or just slightly worse at what you do with computers.
That's a problem for the companies, because if that is the case they are suddenly in a race to the bottom with that someone else.
They would prefer it if some things with computers required a very limited resource they possessed, so doing way better than everybody else became easy, which often leads them to walling off parts of the sandbox.
The Foss people don't like walling off parts of the sandbox and actively sabotage it.
The risk of getting sabotaged is scary for companies.
Companies mitigate such risks often by paying outside companies who are specialized in mitigating these risks.

Refinement:
There're actually a few quite anti-cooperate voices within the Foss community and anti-foss voices within cooperate and those tend to spark smaller conflicts of their own. Internal and external.
I'm right now splitting over the lines of Foss and cooperate, because that is what the question was, but it's obviously an arbitrary line.

With this information why did I argue that "they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms".
First I specifically defined "proprietary" cooperate.
Proprietary is a foss slur for non/anti-foss. I used it to separate cooperate in those that wall off parts of the sandbox and those that don't.
Second I called their fear grounded for the aggressive stance some of the foss people have taken towards those walling off parts of the sandbox.

After that I presented some examples of proprietary companies and how they dealt with this.

Something to keep in mind is that not all corporations are software corporations, and many of those non-software corporations have employees who can code. Those corporations don't have the same conflict--the only reason they have for sometimes not liking FOSS is instinct. But fundamentally, they only gain from FOSS, and this is probably a key reason for FOSS success.

They have the same conflict, just a lot less.
The New York Times would be better off if they were the only one who could write articles on the internet.
A bank would be better off if they were the only ones with some superior database software.
Car companies fill their cars with spyware and drm.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: elmapul

Quoting: LoudTechieThere're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

i kinda of understand what you said, but can you explain it a bit more?

to be more specific the specific relationship between companies and foss.

Although Grigi isn't fully wrong it's deeper than that and management isn't the only issue.

At first I'm going to be a little bit generalizing, but I promise the point will be clear.
Further on I will give a little bit more refinement.
Foss and companies like each other, because they provide each other with tools to achieve their goals.
Foss and companies don't like each other, because they actively fight each other when their goals don't match.
Foss wants computers to be a sandbox where everyone can play as long as they don't actively hurt each other.
Companies want to be so much better than the others at working with computers that people are going to pay them to do the things they do well.
In the basic this isn't a problem, but in practice they sometimes clash.
For example:
When 5 billion people are all active with computers there is a serious chance that there is someone else who might be just as good or just slightly worse at what you do with computers.
That's a problem for the companies, because if that is the case they are suddenly in a race to the bottom with that someone else.
They would prefer it if some things with computers required a very limited resource they possessed, so doing way better than everybody else became easy, which often leads them to walling off parts of the sandbox.
The Foss people don't like walling off parts of the sandbox and actively sabotage it.
The risk of getting sabotaged is scary for companies.
Companies mitigate such risks often by paying outside companies who are specialized in mitigating these risks.

Refinement:
There're actually a few quite anti-cooperate voices within the Foss community and anti-foss voices within cooperate and those tend to spark smaller conflicts of their own. Internal and external.
I'm right now splitting over the lines of Foss and cooperate, because that is what the question was, but it's obviously an arbitrary line.

With this information why did I argue that "they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms".
First I specifically defined "proprietary" cooperate.
Proprietary is a foss slur for non/anti-foss. I used it to separate cooperate in those that wall off parts of the sandbox and those that don't.
Second I called their fear grounded for the aggressive stance some of the foss people have taken towards those walling off parts of the sandbox.

After that I presented some examples of proprietary companies and how they dealt with this.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Purple Library Guy

Quoting: CybolicI've said this since the Celine Dion rootkit [External Link] fiasco: rootkits should not be legal and I don't understand how they still are.

Come to that I'd be willing to bet there are laws in at least some countries that if you looked at them in that context you'd think, "Hang on, doesn't this actually break that law?" I mean, there's all these anti-hacker laws, many of them worded in a way their drafters didn't realize was so broad, or just defined weirdly, or both . . . this stuff probably falls afoul of some of them if you take the wording seriously, it's just most law enforcement pretend that's not what the law says because you can't go around putting rich corporations in jail for doing business, even if that business is crime.

A. Those laws were still being formed back then.
This is actually a very old scandal.
B. Sony has lost multiple court cases for this kind of behavior, some really really expensive. Uche OtherOs Uche.

Sony is the OpenAi of drm development. Everything for the win.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: CatKiller

Quoting: Purple Library GuyOK, this quote annoys me:

"No unfortunately not. From a security point of view supporting WINE would be like having a bank vault at the top of Nakatomi Tower then installing a doggy door in it."

Shyeah right, your anti-cheat is like a bank vault at the top of Nakatomi Tower. Also you walk on water and your shit doesn't stink. I'm sure it's been hacked six ways from Sunday, and here he is being all arrogant about it. What a douche.

Even if one were to claim that Linux were less secure - despite literally all of the high-value infrastructure everywhere using Linux... the vault at Nakatomi Plaza got breached. If he's going to go with plots from films he should have gone with Fort Knox: so radioactive that it's worthless.

Security is a wide term.
Linux is really good at allowing the owner of a device to choose who gets to do what.
It's only mediocre at letting the developer of the software on a device choose who gets to do what and Valve has made surprising little effort to achieve the latter.(I appreciate this)
Anti cheat "security" is of the second kind.
Server security is of the first kind.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: benmhallI'm a little surprised that none of these handheld gaming machines are giving a SteamOS option. Valve is developing it all in the open. There have even been community efforts to package up an installable ISO: https://github.com/HoloISO/holoiso [External Link]

Would it take some effort? Sure, but most of this hardware is pretty standard stuff anyway, so would work well with the kernel in SteamOS 3.5, and running Windows 11 on these devices takes effort, too.

I've flipped this around and have been using SteamOS on an AMD Ryzen-based laptop that I own. The experience has been great so far. SteamOS, as easily used on the Steam Deck, is a very interesting software project. I would love to see efforts in broadening it's use on other devices and form factors.

The hardware part is a fun new challenge for hardware vendors, but nothing they can't handle.
The software part is something they've outsourced for their entire existence.
They don't have the required talent hopping around.
They would need to integrate their own controls into their Linux(or bsd) distro, which is hardcore Linux driver development, which is really hostile and expensive territory.

Also they've a basic and grounded proprietary cooperate fear of open platforms.
To quote Extra History(youtube channel): "don't deal with people who want to install Linux on their Playstation." This was a reference to the Ps3 OtherOS reaction.
The Gnu/Linux community has understandably taken a very hardline approach to those harming the platforms they build.
The community is older and better resourced than most of these Vendors and they learned to be vicious.
Go onto the web and look for IANAL, fsf, OtherOS, GPL and SFC.

There're multiple markets build around minimizing open platform risks. From copyleft compliance firms, to adblock detection, to hardware ip security development, to security audit firms.
Microsoft learned the hard way and nowadays plays the game quite well.
Google has spend its entire existence in the danger zone.
Apple uses a hardline approach, which limits their choices and still results in clashes from time to time.
Nintendo seems to have accepted it as a form of rot.
Sony actively fights it, with varying levels of success.
Hardware developers play from a position of strength and still Nividia flinches every major Nouveau update.
Gaming vendors hide behind Microsoft.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: BlackBloodRumI have to ask, how do people justify allowing a video game absolute total control over their computer at the kernel-level?

How does one justify that is a good thing to have? It is a rootkit.

Regardless if you use Windows, Linux or the other one it just sounds like a bad idea. I can't help but feel the reason these companies won't do this for Linux is simple: They know most Linux users would reject it, and refuse to use the game anyway.

But it still begs the question, why are some people accepting of this?

Ooh, Ooh, I know I read that somewhere on Reddit.
Principle of least privilege and ignorance.
Some argue that, since the game has to prevent cheating and cheating can happen at root level they need to be able to check it.

I disagree on multiple levels.
A. I don't think, it is worth it.
B. I don't think it's needed. I think it's possible to do without and I got ideas of how to implement it.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: martinligabue"macOS version", ah yes, let's make an entire version, without the "good" anticheat on a platform near the 1.5% of the share, and not for one near 2%

Standard fear.
They consider Linux more dangerous, because of the more techie users and the larger user freedom.
They don't realize that Mac has a bigger cheating budget par user and that MacOS contrary to IOS has totally functional jailbreaks.
A fun, but hard way to fix this would be to expand Darling to run the Mac code and just use the Mac version.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: pleasereadthemanualI agree with the sentiment that our public domain is not as valuable as it should be. As ever, OpenAI representatives write with the assumption that they are entitled to do whatever they want, regardless of the laws. Why do they feel the need to phrase it like that?

Quoting: EagleDeltaLLMs aren't going around storing articles, code, pictures, art, etc in its model. It is simply learning from those.... and all the benefits AND drawbacks that come with that.

Sure, but that doesn't mean OpenAI employees are now allowed to download millions of copyrighted works that have been distributed on trackers/DDL sites without permission from the copyright holder. If ChatGPT were only using Common Crawl, that's one thing, but we know they're not.

Supposedly ChatGPT's training content is carefully curated, FWIW.

A. Totally agree. We've to play by the rules or run. They've to play by the rules or run.
B. I would actually go further than that and call them unauthorized hosters of to the copyright holders choice copyrighted content or even of a derivative work of all copyrighted content in their training set.
i. Storing unauthorized copyrighted is illegal independent of whether or not you distribute it. This is how pirates were hunted at first until it proved too inefficient.
Alos copyright is format independent and it has been proven multiple times that training data can partly to fully be recovered from llms. The same has been successfully said of jpg, png and other data formats. Its just easier.
ii. It's a derivative work, because it has been made with the copyrighted data. Would've been different without it. Has been made to mimic properties of the copyrighted data.(The drawback of this argument is that it uses the same argument as the arguments against fan fiction, but they've held up in court and most fan fiction organizations tend to accept that they exist by the grace of their often pretty graceful authors.)
C. This's actually the main difference between the development method of of actual data available AI(often FOSS, not always) and proprietary AI like Bard and OpenAI. Source available AI aggressively curates their data, because it gives a great training speed advantage and requires less data. Proprietary AI tends to use lots of training layers with lots of parameters, due to the low development cost.

View this comment - View article - View full comments