Recent testing revealed that Arch Linux, Pop!_OS, and even Nobara Linux, which is maintained by a single developer, all outstripped Windows for the performance crown on Windows-native games. The testing was run at the high-end of quality settings, and Valve's Proton was used to run Windows games on Linux.
What do the performance metrics look like for the games that won’t run on Linux?
About the same as Spiderman 2 or Ghost of Tsushima on Windows.
you mean the rootkits that won’t run on Linux?
When did ‘rootkit’ come to be a generic term for invasive software? Rootkits are a specific type of thing.
Vanguard, BattlEye, EasyAntiCheat, Ricochet, etc… all run in the Windows Kernel and most, if not all, have the functionality to run arbitrary code, so might as well class them as rootkits.
Anticheats that run in the NT kernel may as well be described as rootkits, especially as they aren’t transparent about exactly what they’re doing. Then there’s the question of what happens if they get compromised
If it has kernel level access and can run arbitrary code, that’s a rootkit.
It’s absolutely valid to call these systems rootkits.
Because “rootkit” sounds more ominous and scary than “kernel level anticheat” and the communities complaining about such things aren’t known to keep hyperbole to a minimum. Gotta push that FUD.
This article for instance, using language that insinuates a huge gap in performance between the Linux distros and windows, when it’s a 6% difference between the best and the worst, on one set of hardware.
Are you serious? How can you do performance metrics on something incompatible? The answer is literally 0fps and 0hz because you can’t even launch it so Linux is hot garbage in this scenario.
(They were not serious)