> Things run very well out of the box.
> a good number of wheels, pedals, joysticks, VR headsets, and other wild and wacky input devices might not work that well or not at all
> If a game has an aggressive anticheat, like Battlefield 6 or Valorant, it will not work and you can forget about it
> Not sure about VR, but I know it was a bit dire 1-2 years ago
The determination of the average Linux user to ignore the faults of Linux is something to behold
> to ignore the faults of Linux
When someone brings up issues related to Linux themselves, that’s clearly not “ignoring” them. It would be a true case of ignoring them if they simply kept quiet about them.
>> If a game has an aggressive anticheat
> the faults of Linux
And besides, as far as I know (well, maybe I'm missing something?), anti-cheat issues aren’t a fault of Linux itself.
And besides, as far as I know (well, maybe I'm missing something?), anti-cheat issues aren’t a fault of Linux itself.
Issues with anti-cheat aren't Linux's fault (the one to blame), but they are a fault (undesired attribute) of Linux.
The deterimination of some people to hate on Linux is also something to behold. It's not perfect (nothing is, not even Windows), but it's a lot better than most people (who I don't think have actually tried) seem to think it is.
The majority of people don't use fancy wheels that require custom software to work. Many people do use anti-cheat, but plenty of people don't need it.
There's Windows games that don't work on Windows 11 but do on Linux (e.g., Red Alert 2). There's wacky gaming peripherals that work on Linux but not on Windows 11 (Try an OG Xbox controller for example). Hell, MS has even removed support for a bunch of VR headsets when they nixed support for Windows Mixed Reality.
Why do Windows users ignore the faults of Windows?
Why do Windows users ignore the faults of Windows?
How many people care about support for Red Alert 2 and OG Xbox controllers on Windows 11 (assuming either of these truly don't work) versus people who care about the ability to play games like Fortnite?
So really the conversation should come down to how well Linux plays Fortnite then. And bringing up games that 'no one plays' is irrelevant.
You can't have it both ways. Either it's only relevant that Linux plays the big games that are on steam, or people can bring up edge cases where windows doesn't do so well.
Edge cases? There's a long history of brand new triple A games running poorly or not at all on Windows. Evstablished games have plenty of problems. There are millions on millions of support pages, forums, and the deep dark recesses of discord stacked with Windows gaming problems. Just because some folks don't have problems with Windows doesn't mean the problems don't exist. The windows user base is so vast it's easy to think there's no problem just because an individual doesn't see it in their little corner of the world.
I don't disagree but when the conversation is about red alert 2 and steering wheels and the response is nobody uses those, then it isn't valid to use the argument that Linux is useless when it runs everything.
Aggressive anticheat not supporting Linux is not a fault of Linux. It is a fault of the aggressive anticheat and the games that decide to use it.
It doesn't matter whose fault it is, I go where the games actually work and are playable, which is still Windows today for many games.
It doesn't matter to you, but other people care about false accusations.
Who is accusing Linux as the cause of anticheat not working? I haven't ever seen that, I see people blaming the anticheat creators for not supporting Linux, they know Linux is not the one at fault yet they still want to play games therefore they use Windows instead.
You didn't read the thread? It's the comment I was replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718255
They quote "If a game has an aggressive anticheat" and then state "The determination of the average Linux user to ignore the faults of Linux", which is accusing Linux of being at fault for the aggressive anticheat not working.
I did not read that to mean that Linux is at fault, I usually would use "X's faults" colloquially to mean drawbacks, not literally, X is at fault and therefore responsibility for this.
Ah well then we have a slightly different interpretation. I would read "the faults of <x>" as "the flaws of <x>", which would then imply a flaw of Linux is why aggressive anticheat doesn't work when it is just companies deciding it isn't worth their time.
FWIW, I am not alone in that interpretation since this commenter reached the same conclusion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718389
But I don't think we can conclusively say either one of our interpretations is correct.
How is Linux fault that some strange peripherals/input devices don't work?
I assume the use of the word "fault" in this context was referring to the "downside" meaning instead of "assign blame" meaning.