I understand why this might appeal to some gamers, I really do. I promise I sympathize, but if you’re willing to run EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux and what you think you’re getting out of it?
At this point we’re starting to see some better gaming performance due to good compatibility layers and Microsoft just repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, but for me at least a large part of it was escaping that ecosystem that gives them control over your system. Giving them that kernel level access so you can keep playing Fortnite is a devil’s bargain. Seriously, please find a new game and I’m trying to convey that in the least judgmental way possible.
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer rather than not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
Hey, that’s totally fine. Nobody forces you to do anything. Run whatever you want on your PC. But don’t try to control what kind of software someone else is allowed to run on their system.
You don’t want corpos to control what you can do, that’s ok.
But you don’t get to control what others can do either.
I see where you’re coming from, but I also see where their concerns are still valid: these changes could become the defacto default for pretty much everything if allowed to flourish without opposition. For a great example of that, see systemd: yes, you can run a system without it, but you’ll be cut off from mainstream distros and even have trouble with getting a lot of regular software to work, such as Gnome, unless someone has patched those requirements out.
So, I’m in favor of pushing back on this, even if it’s not going into a game I play. It might be shoved into games I want to play later, possibly even most games I’ll want to play, even if they don’t have multiplayer, because corpos gonna corpo.
If I had faith it would remain optional, I might feel differently, but I can see this becoming part of the new DRM model that everyone has to bow to or be cut off from pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) games. Maybe even pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) distros.
EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux
Why is that even a question? Running EAC doesn’t undermine why you run Linux (which can have many different reasons). It’s not like EAC takes over your PC like on Windows. The Linux implementation is completely different and uses Linux features, controlled by Linux and not the EAC anticheat. EAC cannot do whatever they want and they don’t get root rights (unlike Windows version of the anticheat).
You misunderstand me: I’m grateful that the current Linux EAC doesn’t do kernel/root level bullshit like the Windows version because Helldivers players just got it foisted on us
Ah I see. Mee too. I was playing a lot Marvel Rivals, and their anticheat doesn’t have this rootkit behavior, nor is it even possible without giving it root access.
I wanted to play hunger. Even got into the beta. Installed it, then I found I couldn’t play it because it’s using EAC2. Fuck if I’m going to bother jumping through hoops to play it. Or any other game. If Hunt Showdown (another EAC title) forces EAC2 then I’ll quit playing that as well. I’m entirely fucking done with invasive anticheat.
EACv2 isn’t actually invasive in the sense how it works on Windows. It uses features we already have in Linux, without itself getting root rights or being invasive. I assume at the moment most distributions have not yet worked on this. I assume (or better hope) in the future most gaming ready distributions will have this builtin without you worrying, or enable it quickly. I think this implementation as it sounds is the best possible way, much better than how invasive anticheat works on Windows. I’m actually stoked about the way Epic handles this! It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
I’ve written at length elsewhere in the topic about how it’s not just the technical implementation, but what this attestation process signifies about control of these companies over your system.
I understand this is one of the weaker arguments I can make in isolation, but it bears asking the question: why is it Epic that’s doing it and not Valve?
They don’t have control over my system. Its still controlled by the Linux Kernel and the features of it, no direct control from the companies. They can’t do whatever they want.
Because Valve is interested in making anticheat work in Linux. By all companies, I would have expected this from Valve. I’m not talking about working on EAC, but all the stuff how it is implemented, the work on using the Linux Kernel and setting up Secure Boot, talking with all the distributions and vendors to make it happen. And even if it was to make EAC work first, I would have expected this from Valve, because they are the most interested into all anticheats to work on Linux.
I understand why this might appeal to some gamers, I really do. I promise I sympathize, but if you’re willing to run EAC on your Linux install it’s worth asking why you’re running Linux and what you think you’re getting out of it?
At this point we’re starting to see some better gaming performance due to good compatibility layers and Microsoft just repeatedly shooting themselves in the dick, but for me at least a large part of it was escaping that ecosystem that gives them control over your system. Giving them that kernel level access so you can keep playing Fortnite is a devil’s bargain. Seriously, please find a new game and I’m trying to convey that in the least judgmental way possible.
I don’t play EAC games, so I don’t really have a stake in this.
There are plenty of reasons to run Linux apart from “I want complete and utter freedom” or something like that.
I would gently remind you that we have been giving kernel-level access to e.g. Nvidia for decades too.
It’s a trade-off, and there are still plenty of actual day-to-day practical benefits of running Linux beyond philosophy.
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
Agreed, I’d rather a family member running Fortnite on Linux than on windows.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer rather than not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
Hey, that’s totally fine. Nobody forces you to do anything. Run whatever you want on your PC. But don’t try to control what kind of software someone else is allowed to run on their system.
You don’t want corpos to control what you can do, that’s ok.
But you don’t get to control what others can do either.
I see where you’re coming from, but I also see where their concerns are still valid: these changes could become the defacto default for pretty much everything if allowed to flourish without opposition. For a great example of that, see systemd: yes, you can run a system without it, but you’ll be cut off from mainstream distros and even have trouble with getting a lot of regular software to work, such as Gnome, unless someone has patched those requirements out.
So, I’m in favor of pushing back on this, even if it’s not going into a game I play. It might be shoved into games I want to play later, possibly even most games I’ll want to play, even if they don’t have multiplayer, because corpos gonna corpo.
If I had faith it would remain optional, I might feel differently, but I can see this becoming part of the new DRM model that everyone has to bow to or be cut off from pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) games. Maybe even pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) distros.
Why is that even a question? Running EAC doesn’t undermine why you run Linux (which can have many different reasons). It’s not like EAC takes over your PC like on Windows. The Linux implementation is completely different and uses Linux features, controlled by Linux and not the EAC anticheat. EAC cannot do whatever they want and they don’t get root rights (unlike Windows version of the anticheat).
Which I’m very grateful for since Helldivers just switched to it
I thought Helldivers is playable on Linux already?
You misunderstand me: I’m grateful that the current Linux EAC doesn’t do kernel/root level bullshit like the Windows version because Helldivers players just got it foisted on us
Ah I see. Mee too. I was playing a lot Marvel Rivals, and their anticheat doesn’t have this rootkit behavior, nor is it even possible without giving it root access.
I wanted to play hunger. Even got into the beta. Installed it, then I found I couldn’t play it because it’s using EAC2. Fuck if I’m going to bother jumping through hoops to play it. Or any other game. If Hunt Showdown (another EAC title) forces EAC2 then I’ll quit playing that as well. I’m entirely fucking done with invasive anticheat.
Steam is full of games that don’t require kernel-level anti-cheat. There’s more than enough to play to not do these companies’ bidding.
I know. That’s what I’m doing.
EACv2 isn’t actually invasive in the sense how it works on Windows. It uses features we already have in Linux, without itself getting root rights or being invasive. I assume at the moment most distributions have not yet worked on this. I assume (or better hope) in the future most gaming ready distributions will have this builtin without you worrying, or enable it quickly. I think this implementation as it sounds is the best possible way, much better than how invasive anticheat works on Windows. I’m actually stoked about the way Epic handles this! It should have been Valve doing it! (And that comes from someone hating on Epic and loving Valve, BTW.)
No.
I’ve written at length elsewhere in the topic about how it’s not just the technical implementation, but what this attestation process signifies about control of these companies over your system.
I understand this is one of the weaker arguments I can make in isolation, but it bears asking the question: why is it Epic that’s doing it and not Valve?
They don’t have control over my system. Its still controlled by the Linux Kernel and the features of it, no direct control from the companies. They can’t do whatever they want.
Why in god’s name should it be Valve’s job to implement this? None of Valve’s games use EAC…
Because Valve is interested in making anticheat work in Linux. By all companies, I would have expected this from Valve. I’m not talking about working on EAC, but all the stuff how it is implemented, the work on using the Linux Kernel and setting up Secure Boot, talking with all the distributions and vendors to make it happen. And even if it was to make EAC work first, I would have expected this from Valve, because they are the most interested into all anticheats to work on Linux.
You might be completely devoid of any imagination if you can’t come up with at least a reason.
You probably didn’t read how it works either. Not really an issue 🤷