To the downvoters: client-side anticheat simply cannot stop all the cheaters. Why? Because it's running on hardware that the cheater has full control over.
It has been (and continues to be) an enormous amount of effort, and some cheaters are absolutely going to get through anyway.
Right, you cannot control hardware you do not own and have in your possession. A cheat that uses another computer and a camera to watch the screen and emulate a mouse is an effective aimbot that no client side method will ever detect. The future must be server authoritative net code and behavior-based server-side cheat detection.
> The future must be server authoritative net code and behavior-based server-side cheat detection.
If they actually cared about stopping cheaters (rather than pouring tons of investor money into the appearance of anti-cheat), then yes, the future must be that.
But. I'm a USian and I notice that the TSA is still strip-searching people at airports and -worse- wasting assloads of everyone's time, effort, and tax money. I have zero faith that a sudden attack of common sense will redirect efforts (whether they be in the arena of airport security or eviction of match-damaging video game cheaters) in a more sensible direction within what's left of my lifetime.
While what you're saying isn't impossible, it's unlikely. In the event it did happen, Bazzite is a fork, a signing key, and a couple forked Fedora Copr repos away from being made completely in someone else's control.
> As much as I’d like this change to happen, it’s too soon. This change would kill off projects like Bazzite entirely right as Fedora is starting to make major headway in the gaming space.
> I’m speaking as it’s founder, if this change is actually made as it is written the best option for us is to just go ahead and disband the project.
Now, whenever you would've actually shut down the project is a different story, but your messaging was very clear.
What is the point of this line of questioning? They stated that the proposal as-written would make maintaining projects like Bazzite untenable. That's a valid thing to say and not that much of a "threat", but even if it were, most people involved here is effectively unpaid and can do whatever they want with their time.
The point is the original commenter said there’s a risk of these kinds of projects getting shut down. The creator chimed in and claimed there wasn’t much risk, and then someone posted comments from the same creator in the recent past talking about shutting the project down if an upstream change was made, validating the original comment and making the creator sound less valid.
No that appears to be directly in line with what I said. What's missing here is your understanding of a proposal vs an actual change Fedora is going to make.
Oh no I didn't mean as a personal attack or anything so thanks for taking your time and for the reply! I know the chances are miniscule but there is that 1% in the back of my brain because it happened in the past with some distros I've really liked
I don't doubt it, but I actually really hate that the build system is a bunch of bash scripts, github actions and assuming the previous stage builds fine. Especially when the custom image forkable repo has an action commented out to squeeze more temporary storage out of GHA hosted runners because some images don't even fit on those (like the gnome-deck). I wish the entire setup was a little more decoupled and maybe allowed you to build multiple stages in one go so the entire system was more "forkable" and less spread out. I went on a bit of a wild goose chase trying to build Bazzite without the Firefox RPM removed (rpm-ostree doesn't like adding and removing and then adding packages again).
I did voice that concern in some Bazzite-related spaces before and it felt like it got brushed off with a weird undertone.
We're working on porting unl0kr from postmarketOS to Fedora to allow for LUKS on the Steam Deck without an external keyboard, that should also work well for a tablet use case once it's done.
reply