Comment by skydhash
3 hours ago
> 1. An equivalent of kernel level anti-cheats.
Ultimately, you can’t trust the user computer unless you go for the secure boot things backed by a hardware key. I’m sure there are multiple ways to bypass anti-cheats on Windows.
> 2. Immutability[…] It's distributing games to 12 different distros with a hundreds different configurations and a thousand customisations
Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games. There’s only one kernel that is greatly back compatible.
> 3. An enforced equivalent of .exe.
I think ELF is the official standard for executable binary. The competition is illusory. There’s nothing preventing anyone from distributing a self extracting archive that installs on /opt. Packaging on Linux is about your system consistency, not software availability.
> 4. Better hardware support
That’s not a linux issue. If the manufacturer is not keen on getting it in the kernel or making it open source, they can always create a binary blob and distribute some shim that loads it.
> I’m sure there are multiple ways to bypass anti-cheats on Windows.
Of course, you can use DMA over Thunderbolt, but the bar is so high (cost, specialised hardware) that most people who cheat won't do it.
> Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games
This isn't completely viable, you can't statically link the graphics driver.
2. Does it really matter? You can always ship a statically compiled games. There’s only one kernel that is greatly back compatible.
There's more to it than dependencies. It's a valid point.
> I think ELF is the official standard for executable binary. The competition is illusory. There’s nothing preventing anyone from distributing a self extracting archive that installs on /opt. Packaging on Linux is about your system consistency, not software availability.
I think he meant .MSI and not .exe, but the point remains and is still valid. Why are there multiple ways to skin the same cat?