Linux

55067 readers

884 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 6 years ago

MODERATORS

AgreeableLandscape@lemmy.ml

nooter692@lemmy.ml

MarcellusDrum@lemmy.ml

cypherpunks@lemmy.ml

cyclohexane@lemmy.ml

d3Xt3r@lemmy.nz

Will kernel-level anti-cheat ever work on linux? (lemmy.zip)

submitted 2 days ago by SpiderUnderUrBed@lemmy.zip to c/linux@lemmy.ml

84 comments fedilink hide all child comments

From both a technical perspective and if the maintainers of these anti-cheat will consider porting or re-writing kernel level anti-cheat to work on linux, is it possible? Do you think that the maintainers of kernel level anti-cheat will be adamant in not doing it, or that the kernel even supports it or will support it. I think that if it ever happens, there will be a influx of people moving to linux, or abandoning their duelboots, and that alot of people will hate that such a thing is available on linux.

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

[–] homura1650@lemm.ee 2 points 2 days ago (1 children)

This is where TPMs, measured boot, and remote attestation come in.

You can run whatever kernel you want, but if it is not an approved kernel, you wouldn't be able to attest to running an approved kernel; allowing whatever DRM scheme the developer put in to active.

I believe this is how the higher levels of Android's Play Integrity system work.

[–] Zak@lemmy.world 3 points 2 days ago (1 children)

When Microsoft first proposed something like that a couple decades ago, it was widely seen as the nightmarish corporate power grab it was. Even mainstream, non-techy publications were critical.

I believe this is how the higher levels of Android’s Play Integrity system work.

It is.

How the fuck did this become acceptable?

[–] seralth@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

Money. And the fact nothing majorly bad ever happens.

Time and time again people cry and claim horrid things will happen if this or that becomes allowed.

Then because of that smart people make sure it doesn't happen or when something does it's so minor that only nerds hear or care about it.

Nothing short of a functional bullet to normal man's head level of bad will EVER get the avg joe to care. And so long as the avg joe does not care, money is the final say in all decisions.

The crying and claiming of horrid things by very smart people, is typically enough tho to prevent the worse of it. Because those smart people are the ones buying and managing or having enough influences among the people with the money.

So it's less profitable to anger those smart people.

But end of the day. Money.