I use a desktop all day, every day (Arch, btw) because I work a tech job.

Android is based on Linux, true but it is hardly a desktop environment (and is mostly controlled by the carrier/Google from a privacy/enshittification perspective).

I think the Steamdeck is a better example. It’s converting console gamers into Linux desktop users and showing people that Linux gaming is very much possible.

The short answer is no.

There’s a lot of study on this topic from the cybersecurity perspective. If you could create an undetectable virtualization layer then it would be used for real-world cyberattacks to steal money and the existence would be quickly noticed by security researchers (and future hardware would include changes to mitigate the vulnerability). It wouldn’t be used for creating aimbots for video games.

If you want to read into the technical details, this stackoverflow thread has a lot of links to various papers and articles on the topic: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/39533/how-to-identify-that-youre-running-under-a-vm

I never suggested or implied that copyright laws need to be removed.

It does appear that OpenAI’s position is “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed” which, during the Aaron Schwartz story, was the position of the community.

Now, since the entity involved is an AI company, we’re seeing people who’re on the side of using copyright laws to punish infringers because they don’t like AI.

Either copyright laws need to be changed or they don’t need to be changed. Someone’s position on the topic shouldn’t change based on who is being negatively effected by said laws.

When Aaron Schwartz was in trouble for downloading copyrighted articles everyone was on the side of “copyright laws are dumb and need to be changed”.

Now it’s more popular to hate on AI and so now people want to see strict adherence to copyright law.

It Mmkes it seem like people lack real convictions on the issue and are just being led around by memes.

Copyright law is terribly implemented and needs to change. This isn’t new and doesn’t become less true because your favorite memes want you to dunk on AI.

The law isn’t automatically moral.

This issue just exposes how ridiculous copyright law is and how much it needs to be changed. It exists specifically to allow companies to own, for hundreds of years, intellectual property.

It was originally intended to protect individual artists but has slowly mutated to being a tool of corporate ownership and control.

But, people would rather use this as an opportunity to dunk on companies trying to develop a new technology rather than as an object lesson in why copyright rules are ridiculous.

Thank a lot Obama

And for some reason suddenly everyone leaps back to the side of the FBI and copyright because it’s a meme to hate on LLMs.

It’s almost like people don’t have real convictions.

You can’t be Team Aaron when it’s popular and then Team Copyright Maximalist when the winds change and it’s time to hate on LLMs or diffusion models.

Is it year of the Linux desktop yet?

Ah, I see you’ve worked on the F-22 as well

Anti-cheat just detects that it’s running on virtual hardware (VMs don’t try to lie to the kernel) and will refuse to allow you to connect.

You won’t get banned but it’ll either stop you when you try to launch the client or it’ll kick you when you try to connect to a game instance.

Ya, I got Audible credits from forgetting that it existed for a few years 😔

That would let you hide things from the kernel anti-cheat but the AC can detect that it is running in a VM and just won’t let you play.

It requires either a Direct Memory Access card and supporting software or a video capture card and enough processing power to run fast image classification for AI aim bots.

Anything running directly on the PC can be detected by the kernel anti-cheat.

You can look online for the hardware and prices

TFW you’re sitting on a plane reading this

It’s on the usual places

other bad-bad no-no words.

Luigi

It doesn’t stop cheating, it just makes cheating require spending a few hundred dollars and dealing with complex hardware setups. This means that relatively few people try.

Non-kernel anti-cheat can be bypassed by software. So it’s cheap and easily available.

That’s the only difference. Kernel anti-cheat doesn’t prevent cheating, it just makes it more expensive.

Developers who use kernel anti-cheat don’t support Linux because userspace anti-cheat is largely pointless. It doesn’t matter if you personally don’t care, the companies that want anti-cheat do care.

The workaround for kernel anti-cheat requires hundreds of USD in hardware. The workaround for userspace anti-cheat is entirely software.

Because of this, you will have less cheaters if cheating has a $500 price tag. That’s why kernel anti-cheat is effective, there’s no way for that to be solved with a WINE patch.

No, because then you can just run software cheats at kernel level which would be completely undetectable to userspace anti cheat

They were like

yay -S *-git