Recent content by Mazzspeed

Like GloriousEggroll said, I want to see Linux grow, people should not be trying to hold growth back. As long as everyone has options under Linux, I'm all for it. I trust the community, including leaders in the Linux community, to keep the corporations honest.

Got it now. Agreed, Sam is an idiot that needs to stop talking.

As stated: EAC in it's current implementation is one of the most widely used anticheat solutions under Linux. I see irony in the fact little Tim's finally woken up to the fact there's actually a whole untapped market sitting there waiting for Fortnite, I see no irony at all that Epic are...

I read it as: No one really cares for your opinion, so unless you want to talk actual facts only when there's a tangible benefit to doing so, shut up and be happy.

No, Epic don't have to approve at all, as long as the kernel is unmodified they don't care, any issues will be picked up by EAC v2 should the kernel be modified. Distro maintainers simply submit their own signed keys and Epic maintains a list of those signed keys. If a key is compromised, Epic...

And you missed my point that should they not support Caninical's repo's for kernels/drivers, they're not based on Ubuntu LTS. There's already a ton of frustrated Mint users, as a distro it sucks. However, Mint uses Canonical's GA or HWE signed kernels as well as drivers, and toggling a few...

Any distro based on Ubuntu LTS is going to use a signed kernel, if it doesn't use a kernel supplied by Canonical, it's not really based on Ubuntu LTS. KDE Neon is only 'just' based on Ubuntu LTS due to it's roiling DE. No one's "turning Linux into Windows". As Linux users, we still have the...

I think we're all fully aware of this Chad, and I think Epic will be going ahead with EAC v2 no matter what. Ubuntu were on board before EAC v2 was released, as a distro Ubuntu and it's derivatives already supported everything needed, the options simply needed to be toggled. Nobara are already...

You can't really hate on companies you believe to be gatekeepers, while praising Valve, in the context of them being gatekeepers regarding gaming under Linux: "If Valve don't accept it, it's doomed to failure"... Which is a big "if", and even then it's not doomed to failure. Valve's...

Er...Yep. As stated, it took Valve 6 months to get HDMI 2.1 support, running AMD under Linux. It didn't take Valve two weeks to get HDMI 2.1 support, running AMD under Linux. There was 6 months of negotiation, really no different to what any reasonable person not praying for failure would expect...

You mean "two whole weeks"! Honestly Chad, it's not like anyone stated specifics in relation to time frames here. As for HDMI 2.1, it took Valve around six months to get support running AMD under Linux. If we consider the whole debacle from the beginning, it took 2 years or more to get support...

Yeah, I just don't see it. Valve are primarily a game distribution platform and they had no problem supporting the current implementation of EAC. Valve make money out of games; whether that be game development, game distribution, or gaming hardware. Should Valve choose to ignore EAC v2, users of...

As I've stated, I'm in no way interested in arguments based on speculation, I'm going to add that I'm also not interested in arguments based on paranoid delusion. I am remaining open to the implementation, my opinion is reserved until the implementation has been released and the kinks have been...

Valve have worked hard with a number of parties to bring gaming to Linux, more secure anticheat implementations are an evolution regarding gaming under Linux. I fail to see why people believe that Valve will refuse to support a more secure anticheat solution from a company that already provides...

Because the players they target with their devices want to play all the games and blocking your users from doing so isn't 'freedom'.