Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer rather than not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
Hey, that’s totally fine. Nobody forces you to do anything. Run whatever you want on your PC. But don’t try to control what kind of software someone else is allowed to run on their system.
You don’t want corpos to control what you can do, that’s ok.
But you don’t get to control what others can do either.
I see where you’re coming from, but I also see where their concerns are still valid: these changes could become the defacto default for pretty much everything if allowed to flourish without opposition. For a great example of that, see systemd: yes, you can run a system without it, but you’ll be cut off from mainstream distros and even have trouble with getting a lot of regular software to work, such as Gnome, unless someone has patched those requirements out.
So, I’m in favor of pushing back on this, even if it’s not going into a game I play. It might be shoved into games I want to play later, possibly even most games I’ll want to play, even if they don’t have multiplayer, because corpos gonna corpo.
If I had faith it would remain optional, I might feel differently, but I can see this becoming part of the new DRM model that everyone has to bow to or be cut off from pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) games. Maybe even pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) distros.
I don’t play EAC games, so I don’t really have a stake in this.
There are plenty of reasons to run Linux apart from “I want complete and utter freedom” or something like that.
I would gently remind you that we have been giving kernel-level access to e.g. Nvidia for decades too.
It’s a trade-off, and there are still plenty of actual day-to-day practical benefits of running Linux beyond philosophy.
Valid points, I type from a laptop running proprietary drivers. But I do argue there’s a difference worth considering what Nvidia might be doing with those closed drivers (something that does increasingly worry me given the current state of things) vs. the much more clear intent of what Secure Boot and TPM implementations are outright stating they intend. These are documented DRM applications with direct control over your system, mostly right of denial, over what software you can or can’t run depending on the state it’s in and what they think about it.
It’s not a zero sum game, every choice matters and comes with its own weight. I understand making these philosophical arguments is difficult and tedious, but if you don’t at least make them, there are a lot of people who aren’t ever going to hear them. EAC is the wide open door to demanding you run services, telemetry, and online accounts on your Linux system enshittifying that, too.
Agreed, I’d rather a family member running Fortnite on Linux than on windows.
I’d rather the hell of device attestation and TPM stay on Windows and away from Linux. I like having my PC be my computer rather than not be allowed to use hardware/software at the behest of some corporation who can arbitrarily decide I no longer get access.
Hey, that’s totally fine. Nobody forces you to do anything. Run whatever you want on your PC. But don’t try to control what kind of software someone else is allowed to run on their system.
You don’t want corpos to control what you can do, that’s ok.
But you don’t get to control what others can do either.
I see where you’re coming from, but I also see where their concerns are still valid: these changes could become the defacto default for pretty much everything if allowed to flourish without opposition. For a great example of that, see systemd: yes, you can run a system without it, but you’ll be cut off from mainstream distros and even have trouble with getting a lot of regular software to work, such as Gnome, unless someone has patched those requirements out.
So, I’m in favor of pushing back on this, even if it’s not going into a game I play. It might be shoved into games I want to play later, possibly even most games I’ll want to play, even if they don’t have multiplayer, because corpos gonna corpo.
If I had faith it would remain optional, I might feel differently, but I can see this becoming part of the new DRM model that everyone has to bow to or be cut off from pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) games. Maybe even pretty much all mainstream (and a lot of non-mainstream) distros.