639
Windows 11 scores dead last in gaming performance tests against 3 Linux gaming distros
(www.notebookcheck.net)
this post was submitted on 07 Dec 2023
639 points (87.3% liked)
Linux
48372 readers
1108 users here now
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Linux is a family of open source Unix-like operating systems based on the Linux kernel, an operating system kernel first released on September 17, 1991 by Linus Torvalds. Linux is typically packaged in a Linux distribution (or distro for short).
Distributions include the Linux kernel and supporting system software and libraries, many of which are provided by the GNU Project. Many Linux distributions use the word "Linux" in their name, but the Free Software Foundation uses the name GNU/Linux to emphasize the importance of GNU software, causing some controversy.
Rules
- Posts must be relevant to operating systems running the Linux kernel. GNU/Linux or otherwise.
- No misinformation
- No NSFW content
- No hate speech, bigotry, etc
Related Communities
Community icon by Alpár-Etele Méder, licensed under CC BY 3.0
founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
Well this article is pretty disingenuous...
The distribution "managed by a single person" depends on hundreds of people working on different sofware to keep up. It's not "one person doing better than the thousands of Microsoft employees combined" implication they are pushing
Windows 11 beat the linux distros by up to 20% in 1% lows which are argued as much more important by most tech reviewers. It wasn't consistant at all which means that there was a giant margin of error.
I love linux and linux gaming has gotten radically better, but I am tired of tech "journalism" literally just cherrypicking, misleading, clickbait trash.
Not to mention the major hurdle for Linux gaming is anti cheat software being brought over. Too many games are 100% unplayable because the devs don't allow their anticheat to be installed on Linux systems
As if the anti-cheat even worked.
Client-side anti-cheat has always been a scam to offload server processing onto client machines.
This results in worse cheat detection and wastes client resources, but companies like EA can spend less on servers.
It also doesn't work. I know that's what the parent comment said, but it's a total scam at the company level too.
"Oh, server networking is hard to do right. Let's do it client side"
"Oh, people are cheating. Let's add anticheat"
I've developed games where the client is the source of truth, and games where it's the server. It is almost always better to do anything that will be developed for more than a few weeks serverside.
Also from an engineering perspective it makes LOADS more sense as you can apply patches to the servers instantly vs. requiring the users patch the game themselves.
Also, you can control the variables of the system it's running on.
Of course, it means when you fuck up, it affects everyone at once.
But with journaling file systems and kubernettes orchestration it's SO easy to revert changes with modern day Linux.
Oh, absolutely. I can't believe we deployed web apps on IIS for instance. What a shitshow that was. If you can run the important bits on something predictable like linux with all the serverside tools that gives you, why wouldn't you.
>client is the source of truth
>company doesn't like the clients truth
In the defence of client side AC; if the entire game runs on the server, then network delay makes FPS:es awful to play. Being able to trust clients and let them do hit detection is quite important in making online FPS:es responsive. In addition, cheats that remove walls/grass, highlight players or even autoaim are near impossible to detect server side. One could try to use heuristics and statistics but it would be difficult to tell the difference between cheaters and players who are just good at aiming and map awareness.