So you're just okay with people cheating then?

fph 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

This sounds a lot like anti-encryption rhetoric: "so are you just okay with terrorists / pedophiles / pirates then?".

everdrive 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

That's a rude strawman of the point I was making. Kernel-level anticheat is just too great of a cost. Your entire system is compromised so that you can play some (usually lousy) AAA games.

I oppose kernel-level anticheat because once it's in place, it will proliferate, even to single player games, just as it has in Windows.

In other words, once it's broadly supported, the number of games available to me (assuming I want to avoid kernel-level anticheat) will actually _shrink _.

▲

Hikikomori 4 days ago | parent | next [-]

What cost? Unless you're using multiple users the game exe can already read all your files and memory of your processes. This kernel argument just silly fear mongering when userspace can already do so much.

▲

daveidol 4 days ago | parent | prev [-]

I think the point the other poster was trying to make is that nobody explicitly wants anti cheat — likely including the game devs.

But the alternative is cheaters in the game, which your point doesn’t really address. So for many it is a necessary evil, so to speak.

	▲	Sammi 4 days ago \| parent [-]
		Linux is an open project. If you want a closed system then get a console. This is a reasonable stance because these things are fundamentally at odds and can't be reconciled on one machine. Either you have an open hackable system, where security comes from cryptography and transparency, or you have a locked down system where security comes from inaccessibility and obscurity.