Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
also noticeable is that none of them seen to know what the results mean
thanks anyways.
the latest LTT video didn't say anything about it, but maybe a previous one did show them evaluating AVs for linux... I haven't seen all of them yet
thanks for the link. No info in the ui analysis, unfortunately. I've never used steam or clamav
but its still odd to see positive results for origin and steam.
None. Never saw a need to.
Out of curiosity I installed clamav, updated and started it. Ran clamdscan --verbose --multiscan --fdpass on an entirely arbitrary 30*/pfx/drive_c, as good as any random 10 prefixes would be. No infected files found.
Ran it on all */pfx/drive_c/windows/system32/mfc*.dll. No infected files found.
sha1sum's of versions of mfc140ita.dll I have:
16413615ac45a4d5e1e5badbc403eb00887b0f57
5058c2a8aab4580ab8da890746b574a4dcd3f942
618e4fba0e7577584dc222236b699b66131fd979
8dba03d4972f53974ddc535b59715080d3c23a02
b1c6f9bd6b9567a5b3be1b5083206be46da9f115
Not being in this list does not mean anything.
I don't have anything with Origin or the specific appid in the OP.
I don't know how slow any antivirus is expected to be but it was taking too long to do more than a few groups of files. It would probably have taken weeks to scan everything.
Just run steam as a flatpak and simply denie as much acces to your system as possible with flatseal.
Flatpaks are much less intense on your machine since, well, you don't run 2 os's at the same time
And we're talking about steam with games. Getting all of that running in a vm means that your vm is going to require more storage than your host system.
And then there is a lot of performance loss especially on the gpu side.
I wouldn't recommend playing your games in a vm at all.
on the other hand, flatpak steam also has issues, especially with recent versions of Proton (since Valve revamped the steam linux runtimes... proton >5.11.x iirc?)
this thread mentions the issue with protin vs. flatpak and some workarounds:
https://steamcommunity.com/app/221410/discussions/0/3154202142451497519/#c3194736442560089725
Splitting a GPU across multiple VMs requires at least one of the GPU cores to remain dedicated to the host to handle the splitting. It also requires a portion of the GPU memory.
Still, this is leaps and bounds in efficiency over old VMs where you had to run an emulated GPU.
The other option, GL API passthrough (VirGL) has roughly about the same amount of penalty.
Either way it will cost you a small amount of GPU, VRAM, CPU and system RAM resources. If you have enough to spare it shouldn't be an issue one bit. The overhead is nothing compared to what it was in the past.
Vm's were never designed for gaming.
You probably wouldn't intall qubes os and expect the greatest gaming performance for example.
Vm's for end users are great if you want to run a windows only app, try arround different Linux distros (or maybe use macos if you are that kind of person)
Yes it is possible, but it's, as you said, far from perfect.
I know i repeat myself, and I'm not a flatpak fanboy.
But if you think steam is spying on you, for gods sake just use the flatpak version and set it up that steam only has acces to the absolute necissary. That comes with no performance penalty and is way quicker to set up.
But I hear good things about bubble wrap as well.