top 89 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] 121 points 11 months ago (3 children)

Long story short, if the Steam Machine gains enough market share, game publishers will want to join in because it will mean more money for them. It's all about money.

  • source
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I originally thought the Steam Deck would be enough for that, but it appears not yet. Maybe the combined share can move the needle

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • load more comments (1 reply)
    [–] 110 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    My solution is simple: if it does not work on Linux, the game is out.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 13 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    Same. I didn't even move my Windows SSD over from my old computer. I wasn't using it before anyway, since a few years ago. Everything I play just mostly works in Linux now so what's the point. I didn't use Windows for anything else but Steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 53 points 11 months ago*

    "We're expecting console numbers this time, and then they developers will have to support it."

  • source
  • [–] 50 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Pretty much the answer I'd expect. In my most outlandish hopes, I'd love for this thing to serve as proper competition to the PS5, it's certainly more exciting than Xbox right now, and pretty much sounds like what MS is planning to try for the next Xbox anyway.

    That's probably not likely, that kind of threat would require some really aggressive pricing, and Valve can't guarantee as much vendor lock-in money post-sale as Sony can. That said... man it'd be incredible to see Valve step into that near-monopoly as well and viably compete against both Switch and PS5, as they both pretty desperately need competition to keep them working for the consumer.

  • source
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    I agree it'll require aggressive pricing, and I'm also sure they know this. I think most of the predictions of price are too high. I won't be surprised if this is sold at a loss. Valve makes their money off the marketplace, not selling hardware. If they can move console players into their market, that'll provide huge returns.

    Consoles used to be sold at a loss. They don't now because they don't directly compete really. Either people get both or they choose based on brand loyalty or peer pressure. I hope Valve comes in and has a price so low you can't ignore it if you're looking to buy a console. The Xbox Series S is $400. I'm expecting it'll be the same at most, potentially even lower if it's sold at a loss. If it's $300 then they'll shake up the market without a doubt.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago* (1 child)

    If they sold it a $400 they'd be at a loss, at $300 they would crash the desktop market. People would by it for general desktop use. Similar how so many PS2 were bought just because it was the cheapest DVD player and didn't buy games.

    Hell, there was a supercomputers built with PS3 clusters. Maybe that explains why the Steam Machine only has a 1Gbps nic...

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I think the estimates are that $400 is reasonable for the hardware. It's not particularly great, and makes some sacrifices for cost saving, which is fine. Like 8GB VRAM is pretty low for modern hardware. It's enough for a lot of games, but modern AAA games it's probably a little low.

    I agree, $300 will be good enough people will get it for a computer. That's what selling at a cost does. These manufacturers already get a bulk discount that buying as a consumer doesn't, and selling it at cost makes it even lower. It'll definitely be a good value for low performance computing, and I'd wager that's part of the goal too. It isn't just a console. It's also an alternative to your computer and, importantly for Valve, gets you out of the MS ecosystem.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Couldn't a problem be that If they set the price too low, companies buy them in bulk and using them as cheap, performant and sexy looking pcs? Consoles are very restricted in terms of os and other software, forcing people to use them in a way that almost guarantees you earning back your loss in the long term.

    Steam machines are the opposite, you can install virtually anything on it and use them for whatever.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    That wouldn't be a bad thing. A lot of the trailer footage was dedicated to showing video editing and 3d modeling software (it's just a PC, was one of the marketing lines). They want people to buy this machine. Who cares if they aren't gamers. Valve also sells digital creative software on Steam.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    it's just a PC

    Yeah, that's kinda my point.

    Who cares if they aren't gamers. Valve also sells digital creative software on Steam.

    If we are talking about businesses, chances are they will simply install windows on it and use licences of applications they already own.. Again, "it's just a pc". The vast majority of businesses don't buy licenses on steam, so why would they change that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    Again, who cares? A sale for Valve is money into Linux gaming support. Still not a bad thing. I don't care what corporations use in their daily work. It is me who wants to use Linux for gaming.

    But I doubt it will happen, if a ton of companies want to buy hundreds of computers at a time, they won't buy from Valve. They have their own vendors who sell in bulk at lower prizes. Corporations today acquire mostly laptops for day to day office work and mini PCs for service stations. High power workstations usually exceed the steam machine by a whole order of magnitude in required specs, and it is way too powerful just to shift spreadsheets around. The mid range independent creator space and mid range studios might see some use for it if it's cheap. But I don't see them causing scarcity of the machine itself. There are other just as cheap options purpose made for office work.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago

    I won't be surprised if this is sold at a loss.

    They can't sell at a loss. Sony, MS and Nintendo can do this because their devices can only be used to buy games on their platform.

    Some corporation could come buy up GabeCubes by the thousands and never buy a single game.

    They have to be at least sold at cost, and probably a bit more, just for a buffer.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago

    Kernel level anything is malware and should not be allowed to be sold.

  • source
  • [–] 28 points 11 months ago* (6 children)

    Perhaps the issue is, partially, structural?

    I know some games are super competitive, but what if we generally went back to user hosted (and moderated) lobbies? They clean their own house. Some cheaters would get through, sure, but I feel like there's more social pressure not to cheat among a group of friends vs. raging strangers.

  • source
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It also leaves room for something silly that I've always wanted to do

    An online lobby where cheating is completely allowed

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Wouldn't that just be a modded server?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 63 points 11 months ago (11 children)

    Kernel-level anti-cheat tools aren't even effective at stopping cheaters. They should just drop that dumb bullshit altogether.

  • source
  • hideshow 11 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago* (10 children)

    They stop a fair bit of attacks and vectors. There's many good defcon talks about this

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 14 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    Didn't they still use heuristics and known database? There's a video of a guy writing his own cheat and practically went undetected.

    This is the video: https://youtu.be/RwzIq04vd0M

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago (8 children)

    Jesus fucking Christ.

    How are any anti-cheats supposed to detect the wild shit they're doing with hardware rendered hacking devices?

    Fuuuuuck.... 😩

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    You need to invest in server side detection, which is more expensive than slapping their eac bandaid on it and calling it a day.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (5 children)

    Server side detection still won't catch the ESP and wallhacks that run entirely clientside, let alone the methods here using custom hardware and/or a seperate computer to actually run the hack. Nothing is being sent to the game or server at all to detect.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago

    I fail to see how you couldn't account for it, in this case you could just enforce facing as a value that is sent to the server and then just use a review like some games have, it wouldn't protect against large volumes of cheaters, but there are other methods that could be employed for en masse. You wouldn't necessarily get an instant response, but you would get all of the wallers who aren't insanely good at hiding it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    I mean, the solution here is to stop being lazy and sending enemy position information when there's no possible way for you to see them, but again, that takes a tiny bit more processing power.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago* (2 children)

    I mean, even that doesn’t stop aimbots. They’ll just snap directly to the enemy’s head as soon as they’re visible. If anything, this would make programming aimbots easier in several ways, because a big part of programming a good aimbot is figuring out how to prevent snapping to enemies through walls. If the server is already handling that, the aimbot won’t need to bother with it.

    If anything, a stupid simple method of server-side aimbot detection would simply be to create phantom player locations. Like randomly generate fake player locations without any character models. Invisible to regular players, but anyone who snaps to that fake location just got busted for aimbotting.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago*

    If anything, a stupid simple method of server-side aimbot detection would simply be to create phantom player locations. Like randomly generate fake player locations without any character models. Invisible to regular players, but anyone who snaps to that fake location just got busted for aimbotting.

    That does not work at all for pixel detection bots. They're not reading game information; they're monitoring the video output. Either directly from the HDMI output or by just using image capture on the monitor. You never have to touch the game, or even the machine the game is running on. There is absolutely nothing to detect!

    You'd have to rely on seeing them visually to identify the cheaters. Which is next to impossible if they are good enough to hide it.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 37 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    There's really nothing new, it's the same as it was on the Steam Deck.

    If the devs are not assholes they can easily allow Proton, from what Valve said before often all it takes is literally one checkbox on their side.

  • source
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 35 points 11 months ago* (21 children)

    What kind of shit question is that???

    You should be questioning the game developers if they want to implement server side solutions instead of installing rootkits on users PCs and dictating what settings they should use.

    Fuck off Eurogamer. No game should require any sort of kernel level access or setting change on your PC.

  • source
  • hideshow 21 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (3 children)

    I mean, Valve could explicitly say that they have some trusted hardware and software stack or something and let games know whether the environment's been modified.

    That'd require support from Valve and be about the only way that you could have both a way to run in locked down mode for multiplayer games where addressing cheating is a problem (and where I think the "closed console system" model is probably mote appropriate and the "open PC model" is at best kludged into kimda-sorta working like a console) and also let the system still run in an "open mode".

    My own approach is just to not play most multiplayer competitive games on PCs. I've enjoyed them in the past, but for anything seriously reflex-oriented like FPSes, your reflexes go downhill with age anyway. And they come with all kinds of issues, even on a locked-down system that successfully avoids cheating. People griefing. You can't generally pause the game to use the toilet, deal with a screaming kid, or answer the door. The other players, unlike game AIs, aren't necessarily going to be optimized to play a "fun" game for me. You don't need an Internet connection, and being in a remote area isn't a limiting factor.

    I think that the future is gonna be shifting towards better game AIs. Hard technical problems to solve there, but it's a ratchet


    we only get better over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 11 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    The burden should be on the developers and a server side solution. No PC should be invaded with software to stop cheating. It's cat and mouse anyway with client side detection, by chasing it so hard they are just incentivizing the creation of less and less detectable cheats.

    The whole "its an untampered system" thing doesnt work. It's like Secure Boot now randomly being required in games. No user should have to enable or disable anything like that just to run a game. It's their device, they should have the freedom to do what they want and still run an application.

    I think the invasion of bots in games is ruining them personally, no matter how old I get, or how bad I get at them, I still want to play against real players. I wouldnt mind a mode with just AI for people, but they should never be mixed in with real players.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    The burden should be on the developers and a server side solution.

    There are some fundamental limitations on what you can do with purely server-side solutions. If you're playing online card games, sure, you can do viable pure server-side stuff to resist most cheating. That'll get everything short of using, say, a calculator to compute probabilities or count cards or something.

    But with, say, FPSes, that's not really practical. You need to have some information on the client that the player shouldn't be privy to to mitigate things like latency. For example, if another player runs around the edge of a wall and becomes visible, your client needs to know that it's behind the wall and rounding the corner to rapidly show the opposing character becoming visible. And that means trusting client side code to not be running a wallhack. And that entails trusted hardware to do reliably, and that can't be done by the game developer


    it's gotta have support from Valve if you want that.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago)

    It's practical, VACnet has existed for over a decade. It might not be perfect, but it's a start and any company serious about anti-cheat could take that premise further.

    The downside is that cheaters have to play at least a game before they are detected. Client side stuff is better for initial prevention, but even that's becoming trivial as most good cheats dont even run on the same computer as the game anymore, circumventing all AC software anyway. If your game costs money to play, that's already one of the biggest hurdles, so prevention isn't worth chasing at the expense of privacy and security of users.

    Any downsides from server-side are nothing in comparison to the downsides of client side anti-cheat.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (16 children)

    How can you implement server-side anti-cheat?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 12 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    It really is as simple as "don't trust the client." Just assume that everyone is trying to cheat and go from there.

    Servers should know what valid inputs from clients look like, and aggressively validate and profile those inputs for cheating. Meanwhile, the server should only send data to the client that is needed to render a display. Everything else stays server-side.

    The key is to build a profile of invalid activity, like inhumanly fast mouse velocity coupled with accurate kills. There's an art to this, but for things like FPS games, the general envelope of valid user activity should be straightforward to define. The finer points get caught during QA, and then further refined post-release. Someone might even come up with a library for this if there isn't one already.

    As a bonus, this also catches situations where people are using kernel circumvention like external hardware, in order to cheat. The behavior as seen by the server is what ultimately gets flagged.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    It really isn't.

    You are imagining cheats must be superhuman, rather than merely better than the player making use of them. It's perfectly possible to create a cheat which doesn't move the mouse impossibly-fast or impossibly-accurately; it just moves it as quickly and accurately as a top-1% player. The bottom-10% player doesn't care that he can't beat the world champion, because he can still pwn some noobs.

    You are ignoring cheats which display extra information on the screen, which the server can never tell. Did the player shoot someone too soon as they came around the corner, or did they just react quickly? Or did someone on their team warn them? The server doesn't know.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (2 children)

    But that doesn't matter, if they have to play so carefully, they will be placed into an ELO where their "skill" matches, so they won't be any more effective than a real player at that level, then they will be forced to be more suspicious and better players sniff out cheaters a lot better than others. So they wouldn't even last long. This is basically what happens in CS now.

    Smurfs can "pwn some noobs" just the same and get called cheaters all the time. Like I said in the other comment chain, we dont need to prevent people from cheating (endless game of cat and mouse), just make it ineffective.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    they will be placed into an ELO where their "skill" matches, so they won't be any more effective than a real player at that level,

    Doesn't the same logic apply to any sort of cheating that isn't literally granting immunity or unlimited ammo?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago*

    Blatant cheaters are what cause the problems.

    There are "good" cheaters today, that are less skilled players and rely on cheats to be better. They fly under the radar, not making their cheating obvious. The end experience to others is that could have been a good skilled player and not a cheater.

    If someone has any sort of cheat that makes it obvious, then that would be dealt with. If cheaters have to disguise themselves as real players, then it severely limits what they can do. And to other players, it makes no difference at that point.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (10 children)

    Machine learning. Oh this player did this impossible move more than once, maybe we should flag that.

    Valve have been doing it for more than a decade. Now imagine what others could do, they are so caught up on "AI", but wont try to use it for anything it could actually be useful for.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 10 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (9 children)

    How do you tell the difference between someone with a good aimbot (that simulates real input) and someone who's just really good?

    You can't (server side).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 9 child comments
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago* (8 children)

    Very easily, that's what machine learning is for.

    You can't tell with client side either, so that's a null argument. Anti-cheat is always bypassed, most good cheats don't even run on the same device anymore, completely circumventing any kernel anti-cheat anyway.

    On the server, they have all the data of where a player could be, what they could see, what they could hear, what human mouse movement looks like etc. that can all be used to target cheaters in a way they cannot get around. Player reporting would still exist of course for any other edge cases.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 8 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (7 children)

    Client side anti-cheat has more data than server-side, because that is where the player's actual screen, mouse and keyboard are.

    The cheat only uses data available on the client - obviously - so the extra data about game state on the server is irrelevant.

    "ML" is also not relevant. It doesn't make the server any more able to make up for the data it doesn't have. It only forces cheats to try and make realistic inputs, which they already do. And it ends up meaning that you don't understand the decisions your anti-cheat model is making, so the inevitable false positives will cause a stink because you can't justify them.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 5 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (6 children)

    It doesn't have to extinguish 99% of cheaters, hell, it doesn't even need to extinguish cheating all together. It just has to make the problem manageable and invisible to players. That's something server side can achieve. I'll take the odd game with a cheater in if my entire PC isn't ransom to some random company.

    If cheaters exist but can only do it in a way that makes them look like a real player, then it doesn't really effect the game anymore and the problem isn't visible to players. You are never going to get rid of cheaters, even at LAN they have injected software in the past. It's a deeper problem than we can solve with software.

    Client-side AC has proven futile over and over again, even today with all the kernel AC. As I already said: most good cheats don't even run on the same device anymore, completely circumventing any kernel (client side) anti-cheat anyway.

    Why be allergic to trying something new? Something that isn't invasive, a massive security threat or controlling of your own personal system.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    It doesn't have to extinguish 99% of cheaters, but if it affects 1% of legitimate players that's a big problem. Good luck tuning your ML to have a less than 1% false positive rate while still doing anything.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago* (4 children)

    Good luck tuning your ML to have a less than 1% false positive rate while still doing anything.

    Already exists with VACnet in the largest competitive FPS, Counter-Strike. And machine learning has grown massively in the last couple years, as you probably know with all the "AI" buzz.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    And it's still used together with client side cheat detection.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] -1 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Yes, scanning of it's own game files to detect anything suspicious. It doesn't scan every file on your computer, dictate what applications you can or can't run and doesn't install itself at the kernel level. I don't have a problem with that at all.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Cool but this started with you saying anti chest should be server side, not that it should not be kernel level.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 0 points 11 months ago

    It was pretty obvious from the get go that my main concern is intrusive anti-cheat solutions.

    Either way, the bulk of anti-cheat should be server yes, a basic client-side AC can exist alongside it to capture the most basic of cheats. Although entirely server side would be fine.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 15 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    "Kernel-level anti-cheat" is just a PR term for malware, change my mind.

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 34 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (16 children)

    It's just a skill issue on the part of the developers.

    Making anti-cheat properly is hard. Writing a spyware that watches everything that happens on your PC and blocks any attempts of touching the game is way easier, but bypassing that is easy with solutions that have higher privledges, thus being invisible even for the anti-cheat. You can just fake calls or hide memory from the anti-cheat, or just edit the anti-cheat in itself.

    The solution for that is to run anti-cheat in the highest possible permission - the kernel.

    Now, you could just make another kernel-level program that would have the same permissions to defeat that, or just edit your OS (i.e Linux, or a VM) where your cheat lives outside and has even higher privileges than the anti-cheat.

    This is where Windows comes in - the only way to run kernel code is to have it signed by Microsoft, and that certification process is extremely difficult and annoying, which puts a pretty big hurdle in front of cheat developers. It's the easy way out.

    You could also somehow reverse-engineer Windows and run a custom version to bypass this. And that's where TPM comes in, which (if I understood it right) validates that your Windows is the official signed one, and thus the kernel anti-cheat is safe. You can't have this kind of affirmation on Linux, and the lazy developers who don't want to invest into actual moderation and proper anti-cheat solutions just resort to kernel anti-cheat rootkit and require TPM to be enabled.

    There's not much Steam can do about this, aside from locking up their OS with signign keys and certification for priviliged software, along with setting up the whole TPM so you can't run modified versions, which isn't really possible since they are based on Linux.

  • source
  • hideshow 16 child comments
  • [–] 55 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (7 children)

    The solution for that is to run anti-cheat in the highest possible permission - the kernel.

    Cheaters just sidestep the kernel entirely and use DMA hardware instead.

    At the moment its rather expensive at ~$400 but prices will probably drop over time.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 7 child comments
  • [–] 32 points 11 months ago

    Oh, cool, so if I understand it right, you have a hardware that directly reads the physical memory, so you can access it unrestricted and undetectable from another PC, where the cheat runs, and then you use a HDMI fuser to merge the output of the game and the cheat that runs on the second PC on a single monitor.

    That's actually really clever, I love solutions like this. Not that I approve of cheating, I have 0 respect for people who (unconsesualy, as in all involved parties agree to it being allowed) cheat. But from the hardware/security point of view, it's amazing.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago

    Oh, cool. Tbh I haven't really looked into cheats much, but I did briefly work in cybersecurity where I was doing malware development, where AV avoidance is basically the same problem as game cheats are dealing with, so I just extrapolated what I assumed works the same.

    This is a cool piece of tech, I'll look into it more. I like seeing new exploits, thanks!

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    That's too complicated to teabag people in Battlefield, but what would I know about the scene I'm not a part of.

    Well, now I'm interested how far it can go in professional cheating. Any vids about that?

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 9 points 11 months ago (3 children)
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    I used to make qol autohotkey scripts for games I played. Take available info on the screen, make notifications or block input at the right time. Stuff like that.

    For example, I made an on-screen mini-map and arrow to guide me instead of having to repeatedly read coordinates from a chat.

    Playing a ping when something happened on screen was the most basic i did.

    I had more fun making my scripts than actually playing the games. It's fun looking for small queues on the screen and then figuring out practical ways of using that. I didn't need AI for this.

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 6 points 11 months ago (6 children)

    You absolutely can have that and more, what we in industry, attestation on Linux. Though the most obvious adaptation of that would the confidential computing space for key bits of the game data instead of the whole fucking OS. Though hardware level memory encryption is a server CPU feature that I don't think any desktop ones support yet

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 6 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (3 children)

    Ryzen so-called "AI" Max Pro has hardware level memory encryption, at least it does on my HP ZBook. But it might be actually be the first laptop to do that as far as I know

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago* (last edited 11 months ago) (1 child)

    Ahh, it's a got a system called Memory Guard but that is just brand name for Transparent SME. Which still, freaking finally, that's awesome. Though in the context of confidential computing, where container/VM memory spaces are assured through encryption it doesn't help since there is no granular page control just the entire memory system transparently to the system above.

    Though I'm not sure if that is a hardware, firmware, or driver limitation (I think below driver because of the reports I saw of fedora failing to boot with the kernel flag set to use it).

    https://en.wikichip.org/wiki/x86/sme

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 3 points 11 months ago

    On my laptop it seems totally transparent to the OS, but I haven't tried setting any kernel params for it, didn't even occur to me there was such a thing but it'd make sense if there is

  • source
  • parent
  • [–] 8 points 11 months ago (1 child)

    I remember buying a Steam Link directly from Valve back in the day for like $7 because of some sale they had. I really hope the same thing doesn't happen to the new Steam Machine

  • source
  • hideshow 1 child comment
  • [–] 4 points 11 months ago

    I think it would have to be wildly successful to achieve that goal but 🤞🤞

  • source
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (5 children)

    Give it the same desktop mode as the Steam Deck and I'm already sold.

  • source
  • hideshow 5 child comments
  • [–] 17 points 11 months ago (4 children)

    That's KDE Plasma. You can use that on most distros

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 4 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (3 children)

    Thank you!
    That's what I was hoping for, because I'm loving my Steam Deck for it (and Bazzite on my laptop too).

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 3 child comments
  • [–] 2 points 11 months ago (2 children)

    Bazzite is peak for a couch or media pc. CachyOS is great for daily use computer with a focus on gaming, especially laptops

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 2 child comments
  • [–] 1 point 11 months ago (1 child)

    Bazzite made installing and running it on an HP Victus laptop with dedicated Nvidia GPU a breeze.
    Does CachyOS handle dedicated Nvidia GPUs well?
    Arch would be nice as base OS, too. Although I'm quite happy with my Fedora derivative.

  • source
  • parent
  • hideshow 1 child comment