• 0 Posts
  • 30 Comments
Joined 1 year ago
cake
Cake day: August 8th, 2023

help-circle




  • That’s a great question and the answer can be found in the wikipedia entry for the .uk domain.

    In a nutshell the volunteer “Naming Committee” setup back in 1985 established a rule that entities needed to register into specific subdomains based on entity type such as .co, where the .co part stood for “Company”. They did this to make managing registrations easier and to provide an “at a glance” way to see what kind of website you were visiting (commercial, government, charity, etc). The “Naming Committee” was extremely strict about ensuring that domains were registered to a specific entity and in the correct subdomain.

    By the mid-90s the volunteer “Naming Committee” was entirely overwhelmed by the sheer volume of domains being registered so that volunteer group was replaced by Nominet UK. Nominet didn’t open the .uk TLD to registration until 2014 and by then the subdomain thing (.co.uk) was so embedded into the United Kingdom’s internet structure that it had become tradition and NOT using was confusing to many people.

    There’s more subdomains than just .co as well and both wikipedia articles I linked list them.

    tl;dr .uk absolutely exists in the UK, it’s just used differently than almost anywhere else in the world.







  • Well, yes. That is how it works!

    As someone who started with slack in '97 these modern distros function so “automagically” that I sometimes distrust them. They’ve hidden so much of the complexity of Linux and whatever Desktop Environment is running on it that most users have very little idea what’s actually happening or how it works.

    That’s been GREAT for getting more people to use Linux but it’s creating the same problem that Microsoft did with Windows. The old DOS users often knew quite a lot about their PC and how it worked because they had to but as the technical barriers went down so too did the knowledge of the users. You no longer had to juggle IRQs, Memory Maps, or DLLs because Windows just did it for you.

    That’s not a bash (lol) on Linux or users of modern distros either, I myself am on Linux Mint as I type this, because it was always going to work out like this. A lot of very smart people put a lot of their time into MAKING it work out like this.


  • The way I understand it is that every anticheat needs to be overhauled as they can no longer tap into the kernel/get kernel access.

    Yes, if we assume that various institutions (cough cough looking at you EU) allow MS to remove kernel access.

    So the anticheat has to eun in userspace.

    VSB-E isn’t really “user space” but your point about the kernel is valid.

    hich is why anticheat should

    The word “should” is doing some heavy lifting in that sentence. Even if it COULD that doesn’t mean devs will allow it nor does it mean that existing games will get updated on EITHER platform. Removing a kernel level anti-cheat could easily be the death of some older games on Windows as the owner simply doesn’t want to put the money into making it work.

    I’m honestly not too sure how possible it is to make VSB-E work on *nix either, since it appears to use Microsoft Hyper-V technologies at its core and those wouldn’t be available in *nix. That means that we’d be back to Game Devs having to specifically write anti-cheat for *nix…which is something they can already do if they want.

    VSB-E is interesting but I’m not convinced its going to do anything for Linux Gaming at all. Hopefully I am wrong. :)


  • Perhaps I’m being dense but how do you see this helping Linux Gaming?

    Even assuming that VBS-E allows Game Devs to shift their current kernel based anti-cheat over to it there’s no guarantee that Linux will get a compatible VBS-E module nor that Game Devs would allow its use.

    I guess I see it as: If a Game Dev does this (use VBS-E) AND Linux gets a compatible module AND Game Devs allow its use THEN newer games may not have the same problem with anti-cheat as older ones.




  • it was the 80s/90s, windows didn’t exist

    Wow, that’s a pretty narrow gap. The 80386 started mass production in 1986 and Windows 3.0 (the first actually usable one) came out in 1990.

    I refused to use Windows until Win95 and even then I was experimenting with OS/2. In 1997 I installed Slack 3.4 and have been around every since. I’m currently running Linux Mint but I sorta miss SuSe and may go back to it.





  • I wouldn’t expect HDMI 3 given the HDMI group are openly hostile to open source implementations of HDMI 2.1.

    It just takes a company with sufficient market power, like Valve, to get involved. For example Android had this same problem in the early days, then Google realized that their OS required it for market adoption and found a way to get it done.

    I understand that it may not be possible but that doesn’t stop me from wanting it. :)