Removed by mod

It can be if you buy from stores, such as GOG and Itch, that provide DRM-free downloads of games. Even Steam, depending on the game.

The solution is to have stronger privacy laws.

Many people have the power to make certain privacy attacks impossible right now. I consider making that change better for those people than adding a law which can’t stop the behavior, but just adds a negative incentive.

I wouldn’t wait around for the law to prosecute MITM attacks, I would use end to end encryption.

Choosing an esoteric system for yourself is a good way for a free people to protect their privacy, but it won’t scale.

If this is referencing using a barely-used system as a privacy or security protection, then I would regard that as bad protection.

Everyone using GrapheneOS would be a net security upgrade. All the protections in place wouldn’t just fade away now that Facebook wants to spy on that OS. They’re still in place; Facebook’s job is still harder than it otherwise would be.

1. What graphics card are you using?
2. What is the output of lspci -nnk | grep "Kernel driver in use"
3. What desktop environment?
4. What filesystems for your root drive and mounted drive?
5. Is your mounted drive able to be read, written to, and have programs run on it by your regular user account?

Try setting PROTON_USE_WINED3D=1 %command% as the game launch options for a few different games and launch them.

Try different versions of proton. Also try changing the version of steam to the flatpak version, or to the native version if you are already using flatpak.

Take the whole log and put it a pastebin like pastebin.com. Then reply with the link.

You know exactly the problem I am describing that comes along with trying to game on a non systemd OS, because you have experienced it yourself.

Sorry, but that issue had nothing to do with systemd.

…you are arguing that solving the person’s issue is irrelevant.

Irrelevant to proving. Context.

…then I’m sure you’ll be able to prove that by solving…

Which is why I said: … developed with systemd as the default, assumed, init system.

Next quote I’ll explain more.

…they expect that it will more or less work out of the box at a fundamental level…

Which more has to do with just being setup incorrectly, than missing systemd.

You ever tried gaming on a non systemd OS?

I do. It works.

…I’m sure you’ll be able to prove that by solving this person’s problem for them within Devuan.

Solving a random non-systemd user’s issue is irrelevant, even if we knew a lot more about their setup.

I would look at the proton log of a game that doesn’t work.

How do I create logs of a game I run with Proton?

Proton will create a log file for a particular game, if you set the launch parameter to:

PROTON_LOG=1 %command%

The log file will be created in your home folder with the name scheme steam-$STEAMID.log. For example:

$HOME/steam-379720.log

…will encounter many absurd and esoteric problems, all of which ultimately stem from the fact that the vast majority of linux software is developed with systemd as the default, assumed, init system.

Unless the application in question is directly interacting with systemd, then I believe this is overblown.

Applications largely simply expect certain features to be supported. DNS, for example, could be provided by systemd-resolvd or by dnscrypt-proxy.

This isn’t being built around systemd, this is being built around the expectation of a feature. This feature can be provided by different applications and still function.

In my experience, providing the features expected is far more important than providing specifically the systemd API.

Basically, any Linux OS that doesn’t use systemd should be considered entirely experimental, beyond any software that the OS devs explicitly state they support.

Hard disagree.

I think the init system is more abstracted away from the developers of a game/typical user app than you are implying.

Same could’ve once been said about a free OS like Linux. Now it is absolutely possible, with the downsides shrinking bit by bit.

The goal of 100% free is one I support. And these people are working to make it possible.

Simple solution is to use cryptsetup to encrypt it, forget the key, and optionally overwrite the first megabyte or so of the disk (where the LUKS header is).

Sounds like flatpaks/appimages with extra steps.

I’m fairly sure the complexity of flatpak/appimage solutions are far more than the static linking of a binary (at least on non-glibc systems). Its often a single flag (Ex: -static) that builds the DLLs into the binary, not a whole container and namespace.

The question should by why you’d want to.

Because the application working is more important than the downsides in my case. Its quite useful for an application which hasn’t been updated in a long time, will never receive updates again, or doesn’t work in my nonstandard environment.

I have had older applications fail to function due to DLL hell.

From my experience a user account usually needs to be in the “wheel” group to elevate privileges through sudo. So try that.

Simply: Do the protections against someone taking your computer and installing a malicious program before/as your OS, or a program that has attained root on your machine and installs itself before/as your OS, matter enough to you to justify the increased risk of being locked out of your machine and the effort to set it up and understand it.

If you don’t understand and don’t want to put in the effort to, then my advice would be to leave it off. Its simple, and the likelihood it saves you is probably very miniscule.

A threat model in which you don’t trust the Linux Foundation and volunteers but do trust Microsoft.

Its all about what you want to protect. If a security breach is worse for you on Linux than it is on Windows because of which party has the data, then for you, Windows might be more secure.

Some people get confused because they think there is some objective measurable security rating one can apply to a system for every person. There isn’t. We may use the same systems but have different threat models and thus rate the security different.

Privilege escalations always have to be granted by an upper-privilege process to a lower-privilege process.

There is one general way this happens.

Ex: root opens up a line of communication between it and a user, the user sends input to root, root mishandles it, it causes undesired behavior within the root process and can lead to bad things happening.

All privilege escalation is two different privilege levels having some form of interaction. Crossing the security boundary. If you wish to limit this, you need to find the parts of the system that cross that boundary, like sudo[1], and remove those from your system.

[1]: sudo is an SUID binary. That means, when you run it, it runs as root. This is a problem, because you as a process have some influence on code that executes within the program (code running as root).