It doesn't matter whose fault it is, I go where the games actually work and are playable, which is still Windows today for many games.

Its a matter of language. When non-technical people here "Linux doesn't support anticheat", that's a lot different than when they hear "anticheat chooses to block Linux".

It doesn't matter to you, but other people care about false accusations.

Who is accusing Linux as the cause of anticheat not working? I haven't ever seen that, I see people blaming the anticheat creators for not supporting Linux, they know Linux is not the one at fault yet they still want to play games therefore they use Windows instead.

You didn't read the thread? It's the comment I was replying to: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718255

They quote "If a game has an aggressive anticheat" and then state "The determination of the average Linux user to ignore the faults of Linux", which is accusing Linux of being at fault for the aggressive anticheat not working.

I did not read that to mean that Linux is at fault, I usually would use "X's faults" colloquially to mean drawbacks, not literally, X is at fault and therefore responsibility for this.

Ah well then we have a slightly different interpretation. I would read "the faults of <x>" as "the flaws of <x>", which would then imply a flaw of Linux is why aggressive anticheat doesn't work when it is just companies deciding it isn't worth their time.

FWIW, I am not alone in that interpretation since this commenter reached the same conclusion: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47718389

But I don't think we can conclusively say either one of our interpretations is correct.