605
Some people just defend the status quo.
(lemmy.ca)
cross-posted from: https://lemmy.ca/post/34790413
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
this post was submitted on 12 Dec 2024
605 points (95.1% liked)
memes
10552 readers
2890 users here now
Community rules
1. Be civil
No trolling, bigotry or other insulting / annoying behaviour
2. No politics
This is non-politics community. For political memes please go to !politicalmemes@lemmy.world
3. No recent reposts
Check for reposts when posting a meme, you can only repost after 1 month
4. No bots
No bots without the express approval of the mods or the admins
5. No Spam/Ads
No advertisements or spam. This is an instance rule and the only way to live.
Sister communities
- !tenforward@lemmy.world : Star Trek memes, chat and shitposts
- !lemmyshitpost@lemmy.world : Lemmy Shitposts, anything and everything goes.
- !linuxmemes@lemmy.world : Linux themed memes
- !comicstrips@lemmy.world : for those who love comic stories.
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
They cant run servers forever. Which is why they should release the server code when they decide to shut down.
Yeah that would be awesome but it’s easier said than done (to no surprise, I’m sure).
One of the big issues I see from a developer standpoint is the potential for leaking proprietary code that they may not want to publicize like things related to authorization, server side anti cheat implementations, etc.
Why would they care? The product is done right? Well every project is not written from scratch and so to publish this stuff it could incur risk to the org’s other current/future projects in addition to helping outside sources get a leg up on said other current/future projects.
This could be dealt with potentially as well but that means extra dev resources and time and potentially inter-org collaboration to develop common OS standards but again that’s work that does not generate $$$
I’m not defending these assholes mind you, I just understand the blockers in the way. The greedy fucks could indeed do this but they never will because of said $$$
By OS, did you perhaps mean open or open-source?
Because it seems most people understood it as operating system.
It is no longer proprietary then.
If it has any impact, then it means they were insecure all along. Or in other words, they had CWE-656 vulnreability.
There are lots of effective opensource anticheats. Server-side, obviously. See minecraft anticheats.
So, POSIX?
It's called anti-social behaviour. "Why help someone else?"
Oh, well, if it’s not proprietary anymore, no problem!!! Did you not read the context regarding the impact to other existing and in-progress projects?
Also I like how you threw out POSIX as if that somehow makes this concept not only feasible but also fits into profit margins to be able to secure the additional funding. Who will sign up to contribute time and resources and stick to those same standard long term? EA? Ubisoft? I didn’t say it couldn’t be done I said it’s not something corporate would ever go for.
Go ahead and tell those big corpos to stop being anti social, I’m sure that’ll secure the funding and commitments necessary industry-wide
We are literally trying to pass a law to force them.
~~> mentions AWS~~
> says POSIX is not feasable
Are you imagining them renting AWS and running windows?
That's what we are doing. Even your argument is about success.
Let me guess, you are from USA. That's how we have healthcare and labour laws.
EDIT: where did mention of AWS go? Was it in another thread? I can't find it.
EDIT 2: found https://lemm.ee/comment/16849765