I think you’re misunderstanding why I’m bringing it up. It’s not because I think their server is protected by anticheat, but because they’re both forms of security. And my point is that their security posture is focused on the wrong area by scapegoating Linux instead of where they should be focusing, server security. If you don’t think their misplaced focus on Linux (which I agree is unrelated to server security) has anything to do with getting hacked then I don’t know what to tell you.
To give it an analogy, if your local government had unmaintained roads and you commented about how they spend tons of resources on police patting down everyone to prevent them from planting gardens, sure you could say it’s “not related to roads”, but that’s the whole point of bringing it up. It’s unrelated which is why it’s dumb to be focusing on it. Client sided anticheat is not equal to server security, but the misplaced security focus makes it relevant even if it’s not specifically on topic.
It’s like if a boat was sinking due to a huge hole and your captain was busy trying to stop people from tightening loose bolts on wobbly chairs. Yeah it’s not the same thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to point out the misplaced focus.
Does that make sense?
(Edited to make the metaphors illustrate both 1. unrelated issues being relevant to a discussion within the scope of misplaced focus and 2. that the misplaced focus in this case isn’t even because they’re spending resources on the other issue, but rather trying to scapegoat and block people from fixing the unrelated issue)
I’m assuming this is a good faith question and that you’re not just just trying to play word games: they’re focused on scapegoating Linux by refusing to support it and blaming it for supposedly being a security nightmare. I’m pointing out that this is misplaced obviously because they have bigger concerns, as evidenced by the article.
I see! My metaphor was mainly meant to illustrate that whether anticheat is directly related to the current security issue is orthogonal to why I thought it was relevant to bring up. I could have picked a better one that didn’t imply that their misplaced concern about Linux cheaters actually consumes resources.
Maybe a better metaphor would be a municipality refusing to do something about a small issue (maybe poor transit to a specific neighborhood) and also actively refusing to let that neighborhood solve the problem themselves (proton devs) with the excuse that allowing that neighborhood to have transit would cost too much (even if the neighborhood were to do it themselves) and cause more crime (painting Linux users as hackers) all the while some completely unrelated group is actually causing the crime elsewhere.
You are not logged in. However you can subscribe from another Fediverse account, for example Lemmy or Mastodon. To do this, paste the following into the search field of your instance: [email protected]
Welcome to the largest gaming community on Lemmy! Discussion for all kinds of games. Video games, tabletop games, card games etc.
Rules
1. Submissions have to be related to games
Video games, tabletop, or otherwise. Posts not related to games will be deleted.
This community is focused on games, of all kinds. Any news item or discussion should be related to gaming in some way.
2. No bigotry or harassment, be civil
No bigotry, hardline stance. Try not to get too heated when entering into a discussion or debate.
We are here to talk and discuss about one of our passions, not fight or be exposed to hate. Posts or responses that are hateful will be deleted to keep the atmosphere good. If repeatedly violated, not only will the comment be deleted but a ban will be handed out as well. We judge each case individually.
3. No excessive self-promotion
Try to keep it to 10% self-promotion / 90% other stuff in your post history.
This is to prevent people from posting for the sole purpose of promoting their own website or social media account.
4. Stay on-topic; no memes, funny videos, giveaways, reposts, or low-effort posts
This community is mostly for discussion and news. Remember to search for the thing you’re submitting before posting to see if it’s already been posted.
We want to keep the quality of posts high. Therefore, memes, funny videos, low-effort posts and reposts are not allowed. We prohibit giveaways because we cannot be sure that the person holding the giveaway will actually do what they promise.
5. Mark Spoilers and NSFW
Make sure to mark your stuff or it may be removed.
No one wants to be spoiled. Therefore, always mark spoilers. Similarly mark NSFW, in case anyone is browsing in a public space or at work.
6. No linking to piracy
Don’t share it here, there are other places to find it. Discussion of piracy is fine.
We don’t want us moderators or the admins of lemmy.world to get in trouble for linking to piracy. Therefore, any link to piracy will be removed. Discussion of it is of course allowed.
anti-cheat has nothing to do with server security
I think you’re misunderstanding why I’m bringing it up. It’s not because I think their server is protected by anticheat, but because they’re both forms of security. And my point is that their security posture is focused on the wrong area by scapegoating Linux instead of where they should be focusing, server security. If you don’t think their misplaced focus on Linux (which I agree is unrelated to server security) has anything to do with getting hacked then I don’t know what to tell you.
To give it an analogy, if your local government had unmaintained roads and you commented about how they spend tons of resources on police patting down everyone to prevent them from planting gardens, sure you could say it’s “not related to roads”, but that’s the whole point of bringing it up. It’s unrelated which is why it’s dumb to be focusing on it. Client sided anticheat is not equal to server security, but the misplaced security focus makes it relevant even if it’s not specifically on topic.
It’s like if a boat was sinking due to a huge hole and your captain was busy trying to stop people from tightening loose bolts on wobbly chairs. Yeah it’s not the same thing, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t useful to point out the misplaced focus.
Does that make sense?
(Edited to make the metaphors illustrate both 1. unrelated issues being relevant to a discussion within the scope of misplaced focus and 2. that the misplaced focus in this case isn’t even because they’re spending resources on the other issue, but rather trying to scapegoat and block people from fixing the unrelated issue)
Can you clarify, are they focused on Linux or ignoring it?
I’m assuming this is a good faith question and that you’re not just just trying to play word games: they’re focused on scapegoating Linux by refusing to support it and blaming it for supposedly being a security nightmare. I’m pointing out that this is misplaced obviously because they have bigger concerns, as evidenced by the article.
I was confused by your metaphor so was genuinely trying to clarify!
I couldn’t work out if you thought they’re wasting resources on Linux or should be investing in Linux
I see! My metaphor was mainly meant to illustrate that whether anticheat is directly related to the current security issue is orthogonal to why I thought it was relevant to bring up. I could have picked a better one that didn’t imply that their misplaced concern about Linux cheaters actually consumes resources.
Maybe a better metaphor would be a municipality refusing to do something about a small issue (maybe poor transit to a specific neighborhood) and also actively refusing to let that neighborhood solve the problem themselves (proton devs) with the excuse that allowing that neighborhood to have transit would cost too much (even if the neighborhood were to do it themselves) and cause more crime (painting Linux users as hackers) all the while some completely unrelated group is actually causing the crime elsewhere.
That’s not going to stop G*mers trying to act smug while showing how clueless they really are.
G*mers?
Gaymers
People whose entire personality and identity revolves around gaming.
Yes I understand the definition, I just don’t understand why you censored yourself
Because I would rather not degrade myself by thinking of G*mers as people.
Aren’t you thinking about them more by having to explicitly think of replacing the a with an asterisk when you want to refer to them?
I’m thinking of them being below me.
Which they are.
troglodytes, the lot of them.
Really did not expect to stumble onto a complex with this question