Linux

48224 readers

1150 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

[email protected]

639

Windows 11 scores dead last in gaming performance tests against 3 Linux gaming distros (www.notebookcheck.net)

submitted 11 months ago by [email protected] to c/[email protected]

107 comments fedilink hide all child comments

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments

[–] [email protected] 18 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Malware defined as any software that does not benefit the user but wastes systems resources would fit here.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 9 points 11 months ago (1 children)

And that definition depends on how you define “benefitting the user”. If someone has an online match ruined by a hacker, I’d argue that they would have benefitted from the game running some kind of anticheat.

Do we define user as the singular individual person? Or do we consider the user as a collective, and factor in the larger benefit to the masses? It could even be argued that the people running cheats are the ones running malware (specifically, malware that targets the other users in the match) and should therefore be treated the same way we treat people who use more traditional viruses and trojans at the detriment to others. The same way you wouldn’t want some virus-ridden machine connecting to your home network, (you’d probably want everyone to at least be running a basic virus scanner and have common sense when browsing,) you would want everyone in the game running anticheat to ensure there is no malware.

Very few people would say that it’s okay to waste others’ time and computer resources on a bitcoin miner trojan… Most people would (correctly) determine that it is theft. But then when it comes to online games, the same people feel entitled to waste other peoples’ time and computer resources by ruining their matches.

[–] [email protected] 0 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 children)

If your security relies on software in the control of the end user you have a problem.

[–] PM_Your_Nudes_Please 1 points 11 months ago (1 children)

That’s largely a corporate decision that is out of the hands of the programmers. Generally speaking, security specialists would agree with you. But running anticheat on the server costs server resources, which means you need more servers to accommodate the same number of players. Running it client-side is a cost cutting measure mandated by the corporate bean counters who did the math and concluded it’d be cheaper for the company to spend the users’ computer resources instead.

While I agree that client-side security isn’t the best solution, it’s certainly better than no solution. It’s the same argument people have against self-driving cars. The self-driving cars don’t need to be perfect; They just need to be better than the average driver. If they can reduce the number and severity of accidents that are currently happening without them, then they should be implemented. Even if the solution isn’t perfect. Because an imperfect solution is better than doing nothing at all.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

You're right and it's a pragmatic approach to the problem. They only need broad technical effectiveness to change user behaviour.

I'd argue that it's not strictly cost cutting but cost transferring. The total client resources most likely exceed that which would be needed on servers.

[–] [email protected] 1 points 11 months ago

I don't think that is a widely accepted holistic definition of malware. But even if, AC is not waisting resources. It's taking the resources it needs to perform its job.