Quoting: Lofty

Quoting: slaapliedjeHa, finally an excuse for men to carry around purses?

i think you will find that's called a murse.

Why does that concept exist?
My wife has gradually used purses less and less over the years, the pull of fashion and socialization losing out to the fact that backpacks are just so much better for actually, you know, carrying stuff in.
So why would guys deliberately subject themselves to them when society doesn't even expect it?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: mircalla

Quoting: BumadarBut but but the gauls had astrix and obelix, and obelix would trash those Romans around leaving craters and such every ;)

Oh you're right, and I'm pretty sure I've seen Getafix's cauldron used as artillery...

Also menhirs. And I think the bard, although that might not have been on purpose.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Beamboom

Quoting: Cyril

Quoting: BeamboomIs it just me, or do most kickstarter projects with a promised Linux version end up like this? I feel it's happened over and over and over now...

No, see this:

https://www.gamingonlinux.com/crowdfunders/

That page only lists the ones that did deliver. It doesn't tell anything about what share they represent in the totality - how many crowdfounded projects that did not deliver on promise.

At the top, it says

Total Projects: 428 | In Development: 89 | Finished: 428 | Total Failed: 53
Based on those finished: Success Rate: 88% | Failure rate: 12%

That looks to me like it's saying 88% delivered.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Guest

Quoting: Purple Library GuySo, if there were such a Fortnite, the security-conscious people wouldn't buy--um, it's free--wouldn't acquire it. Fine, fair enough.

I'm just responding to this little bit before bowing out because you've said it several times, but Fortnite isn't free. Up-front cost is zero perhaps, but the psychological pressure to buy items, to spend money on the game, to have adverts targeted directly at you, is the real cost.

I'm sure this is true, and doubtless it's worth pointing out, but it's way to the side of any point I was making.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: Shmerl

Quoting: Purple Library GuyI'm unhappy they will have to have, because it makes the Steam Deck less attractive to them. And if any of those people cared about the arguments people here are making about the dangers of kernel level access for foreign software, they wouldn't be playing Fortnite in the first place.

I don't think it's a reason to feel bad for them. I don't.

Did I say something about feeling bad for them?
I want lots of Steam Deck sales.
(and for those who buy to continue using SteamOS rather than loading Windows onto it)
I think lots of people gaming on SteamOS due to buying Steam Decks will be good for the future of Linux gaming, even crucial.
Things that will interfere with there being lots of Steam Deck sales, or with use of SteamOS on those Steam Decks, therefore, are bad.
Fortnite not working on SteamOS because Tim Sweeney won't enable EAC-for-Proton on Fortnite, is such a thing. So it's bad.
Why does everyone seem to think I'm making some other point than the really obvious one? Why do so many people seem to have so little interest in keeping their eye on the ball that when I say look, there's the ball, they come back with "Forget about that, there's a seagull pecking at something on the field"?

View this comment - View article - View full comments

All this stuff about whether people should trust a Fortnite on Linux with a kernel anti-cheat module is somewhat beside the point. So, if there were such a Fortnite, the security-conscious people wouldn't buy--um, it's free--wouldn't acquire it. Fine, fair enough.

But that's not important. The issue here is whether people who already play Fortnite on Windows with EAC with kernel-level access, will be able to do the exact same thing on their shiny new Steam Deck where they probably don't keep their sensitive information anyway. Not being able to do that is a disappointment I'm unhappy they will have to have, because it makes the Steam Deck less attractive to them. And if any of those people cared about the arguments people here are making about the dangers of kernel level access for foreign software, they wouldn't be playing Fortnite in the first place.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: PhiladelphusWhat wristy wrack hath WRAEK wrought? Readily in evidence is the wreck wreaked on hapless wrenched wrists, restlessly arrested above the touchpad, rapidly escalating into wreckage as they relentlessly wrestle gravity so that your character isn't suddenly wrested into roving abreast of a wretched reckoning wreathed with enemy fire when least expected! At least when using WASD* at present I can rest my wrist on the wrist-rest reckless of consequence.

What is this? I said, bring me a wench!

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: RobertKrigI think the "We don't want to pay Valve's fees" is probably the real reason why fortnite won't be coming to steamdeck.

I'll repeat: There are no fees, because Fortnite is free to play, and Steam does not collect a percentage on within-game transactions, only on game (and DLC) sales. "We want to beat Valve's store" is probably the real reason why Fortnite won't be coming to Steam Deck.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

Quoting: GuestSweeney is wrong and I'm happy to explain why.

Anti-cheat systems for games exist for one and one reason only: It's a hack that allows game devs to write insecure implementations in which the data from the clients are trusted implicitly by the server because coding the server to properly validate all of the input is a hard and expensive (in terms of processor power) problem to solve.

If multiplayer games were written like proper web applications are, this would not be an issue. To be clear, web applications run inside a browser, virtually every one of which has an easy to access dev console that allows users to modify any part of the client side code and client side behavior of the application. Yet despite this it is possible to write a secure web application. That's because the server component of a properly written web application does not trust it's clients implicitly and double checks everything the client attempts to do against a set of rules.

Multiplayer games don't do this. To work around this, they implement anti-cheat systems which rely upon invasive kernel level hacks and monitoring to try and determine whether a user is actually playing or just cheating.

This entire approach is inherently flawed and until the game industry pulls its head out of its collective rear end, this will continue to be a major stumbling block. There is absolutely no good reason why a stupid game needs to be running kernel level code. None at all.

That may all be true on the broad scale, but it doesn't really relate to the specific issues the CEO of a firm publishing anti-cheat software has to deal with here and now. You could be right about the overall issue, and he could still be correct and above-board about whether he should be enabling EAC on Fortnite on the Steam Deck. I don't think he is, mind you--I'm just saying the two things don't address each other directly.

View this comment - View article - View full comments

I respect Samsai, but I don't buy this argument.
As I see it, in very brief form, Samsai is saying
--doing a kernel module for EAC would be problematic because of the GPL
Thing is, as I understand it there are lots of binary blobs in the kernel in nearly all distros. I don't see this as a realistic issue.
A sub-point he made on this would be that it would look bad. This is ridiculous. I don't think Epic can look much worse in the eyes of the open source community than they already do, and I don't think doing a kernel module for EAC on the Steam Deck would make them look worse than, well, sabotaging the Steam Deck by keeping Fortnite off it.

--"On Windows . . . they can assume some level of security through obscurity."

As far as I can tell, cheating on Fortnite is an industry. Samsai seems to be describing a level of security by obscurity that would stop casual cheaters from writing their own cheat functionality from scratch, thus only allowing elite, highly skilled cheaters to do so. Except casual cheaters don't write their own cheat functionality, they do a quick google and buy a cheat program from the thriving industry writing them. The thriving industry is clearly not deterred by this mild level of security by obscurity; we know this because you can do a quick google and find their programs for sale. The scenario and issue Samsai describes is not just marginal, I would wager it literally does not exist at all. The only kind of person who would imagine it might would be, well, a non-cheating Linux user used to controlling their system who is also some kind of skilled programmer and so imagines that if they wanted to cheat on games, they might do it from scratch themselves. In real life, I don't think anyone in the world does it that way, and certainly no low-skilled casual cheater does, and so this security by obscurity that would deter this sort of cheater is entirely hypothetical.
Come to that, arguably, Linux has significantly more security by obscurity just because most employees in this thriving industry are very likely to be Windows programmers and not familiar with Linux. Not that it matters.

I think Samsai has come to his position by making an error at a more social level. He looks at Tim Sweeney saying X, and at many people saying hostile things about Tim Sweeney saying X, and considers that many of those hostile things are not well informed, and that after all Sweeney is an important man at the top of a large company. Plus, frankly, honourable people tend to just imagine certain basic levels of conduct in others. So his instincts tell him that he shouldn't react in a knee-jerk fashion like the hostile people, and that he should give some benefit of the doubt to Sweeney because come on, surely an important person in a public role wouldn't just be lying through their teeth. And so, he starts thinking about ways in which Sweeney's claims could be true, and comes up with some.

The problem is that Tim Sweeney is in fact very likely to be lying through his teeth, and indeed we can verify that because, within the same sequence of tweets under discussion, he clearly did lie through his teeth. Specifically, he said

Epic would be happy to put Fortnite on Steam. We wouldn't be happy to give Steam 20-30% of its revenue for the privilege.

Now, Fortnite is free to play. I presume it makes lots of money from micro-transactions within the game. But Steam, unlike Apple that I believe Epic had a lawsuit with over this very issue, does not collect a percentage from such in-game transactions, and there is no possible way Sweeney does not perfectly well know this. So, if Fortnite were available on Steam, Epic would be paying Valve 20-30% of zero for the privilege.
So he's lying. Flat out, no ifs, ands or buts, it's a barefaced lie. From what I've heard of Sweeney's character, this is far from unusual for him. This does not prove that the stuff about EAC is lies, but it does show that it is unwise to give him the benefit of the doubt, or start from the idea that he might be right and look for ways to square that possibility with the rest of reality.

View this comment - View article - View full comments