It’s both a form of security, and my point is that they’re focusing on the wrong area. If you don’t think their misplaced focus has anything to do with getting hacked then I don’t know what to tell you.
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.
anti-cheat has nothing to do with server security
That’s not going to stop G*mers trying to act smug while showing how clueless they really are.
G*mers?
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
It’s both a form of security, and my point is that they’re focusing on the wrong area. If you don’t think their misplaced focus has anything to do with getting hacked then I don’t know what to tell you.
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.