5
It is not my intention to question or insult your intelligence, only to offer a stupid solution as it’s happened before.
Is your monitor connected to the video card and not accidentally the motherboard?
It is connected to the graphics card. Like I said, it ran fine on Windows so its not a hardware issue.
Secure Boot can sometimes mess with it. Try disabling that in your BIOS.
This seems to have fixed it! Thank you!
It's always something-something-Microsoft
The most current NVidia driver generation needs special setup for secure boot. But IIRC it doesn't support the non RTX cards anymore. And sadly I can't remember how to set up the older generations.
For the newest you need a setup that compiles and signs the Kernel module of the driver and you also need to manually import the (generated) key into your UEFI to allow secure boot to succeed. The former is usually mostly automated by your distribution, but the latter need to be done by you manually.
Or, just disable the increasingly inaccurately-named "Secure Boot."
Yeah, that's always an option. If you want to. On paper I like the idea for security reasons, but I dislike that a single company can basically control, what is able to be installed/executed and what is not allowed.
Check to make sure you are using the 'recommended' video driver for your system according to the driver manager. Also, check to make sure that you have installed all available updates through the updates manager.
It sounds like you are using Steam, so I would recommend using the install directly from the official site instead of the flatpak, if that's what you've done.
Secureboot isn't worth the 1's and 0's it's made of. It's the illusion of security, since it was already defeated. It only inhibits incompetent hackers and malware. The weakest link in all computer security is always the user. SB just causes more problems than solutions.
this is really stupid advice. Secureboot should be installed on laptop otherwise your device is as good as open. Sure it has some CVEs but its a big step up in security and its getting better and better on linux.
This performance issue is likely due to an issue with the driver not with secure boot itself. Maybe since it is an old driver it wasnt signed.
What advantage does secure boot have compared to full disk encryption? The only examples I've seen have been contrived evil maid attack that fails under scrutiny.
Evil maid is one advantage but signed modules is another. Secure boot can prevent you from loading unsigned kernel modules once booted.
You basically need to have both or your computer is practically open for anyone who has physical access to the device.
For my desktop I dont use either but for my laptop i'd never leave home without both.
Once you're booted secure boot is inactive. If there was a security benefit to only loading signed modules, then distros would have that enabled by default regardless of the secure boot status.
Iirc, requiring modules be signed is a requirement Microsoft put on the shim bootloader rather than Lunux's choice. I could be mistaken here, I'm not too sure on the specifics.
Regardless, if someone has the ability to load or modify modules on an encrypted Linux install, they can just steal Firefox's cookie jar and cut out the intermediate step.
I might be wrong on some of this so take it with a grain of salt but heres my view.
Its not only loading signed modules it enables kernel lockdown mode which prevents even the root user from accessing certain kernel functions. This prevents them from installing persistent malware and a host of other attacks. Fedora and other distros that ship secure boot do enable this.
Yes microsoft signs the shim but I believe other authorities are being worked on.
If someone gets root on your system they can do a lot of damage but you can still prevent it and limit it. Stealing my firefox cookies is much better than installing persistent malware. If my cookies are stolen I can clear the malware and reset my passwords, same cannot be said for loading something into the kernel.
My gut reaction is that there are a lot of ways, once you have root access, to have your changes persistent. For example, modifying/replacing binaries, adding new ones before old ones in the path, adding startup scripts, modifying config files. Kernel modules seem to be an overcomplicated way to go about it, especially since (afaik) it would need to be compiled against the specific kernel version.
If you have security software it will check all of those against a known good default. The web of trust on boot is needed so the security software knows 100% that the kernel and its modules are trustworthy.
But then the security software and all its libraries has to be trusted, and isn't a kernel module.
The security module should absolutely be signed and trusted.
this post was submitted on 30 Apr 2026
5 points (85.7% liked)
Linux Gaming
25941 readers
41 users here now
Discussions and news about gaming on the GNU/Linux family of operating systems (including the Steam Deck). Potentially a $HOME away from home for disgruntled /r/linux_gaming denizens of the redditarian demesne.
This page can be subscribed to via RSS.
Original /r/linux_gaming pengwing by uoou.
No memes/shitposts/low-effort posts, please.
Resources
Help:
- ProtonDB
- Are We Anticheat Yet?
- r/linux_gaming FAQ
- Fork of an earlier version of the above
- PCGamingWiki
- LibreGameWiki
Launchers/Game Library Managers:
General:
Discord:
IRC:
Matrix:
Telegram:
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS