Originally posted by kaprikawn
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Wayland Remote Desktop May Come To Fedora 29
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by Azrael5 View Post
which programs need to be converted to make them compliant with wayland? As example Krita, gimp, kolourpaint the browasers as chromium or firefox or falkon....
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by pininety View Post1. Which features are you missing?
btw, I want it on all compositors and if one of them doesn't implement them, to be able to be flagged as "bad compositor, doesn't implement full specification" or whatever, not "oh this compositor just doesn't implement it because it's not required to". If the latter, it is a horrible situation and my entire gripe with Wayland.
Originally posted by starshipeleven View PostI'm here wondering why you think only Wayland exploits matter, while there cannot be exploits in the rest of the system that make futile all the circus you're doing here.
I mean, the linux kernel does offer namespaces, cgoups and other security features that go above and beyond the basic "user separation" for a reason.
Exactly my point why you must always be cautious no matter how "secure" something is in theory.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostExactly my point why you must always be cautious no matter how "secure" something is in theory.
As a general rule of thumb, defences should be layered to minimize the effect of potential exploits. As with a layered defence system any attack would have to bypass each layer before they can get at me.
If you rely on a single thing then anything that can bypass THAT single thing means you're screwed.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
When did I say it's only Wayland? I never said Wayland is less secure than X, wtf. I just said its security is pretty minuscule in terms of importance (at least in my opinion obviously), especially since you should still be careful online (just like with X). But removing features in the name of such pseudo security (that's what I meant by pseudo) is a dumb move. I think it was a different thread where I said that if you want perfect security then unplug your internet connection, you won't have a lot of "features" and functionality but you'll be bullet proof.
There's just a middle ground between security and functionality and in my opinion Wayland is skewed too much towards security (on the other hand X is also skewed too much on functionality in this context, or lack of security, but if I had to pick between these 2 evils, I'd pick functionality).
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by Weasel View PostWhen did I say it's only Wayland?
Because you pulled your utter insanity about killing applications and restarting them with a different user or somesuch like that was watertight when it's really not if you apply the same reasoning you apply to Wayland or namespaces.
I never said Wayland is less secure than X, wtf.
I just said its security is pretty minuscule in terms of importance (at least in my opinion obviously), especially since you should still be careful online (just like with X).
The entire security model based on the user trusting applications is bullshit and stopped working when the Internet became a thing. The security model for the modern world is not trusting anything by default.
Wayland is part of the future vision for Linux where applications will get sandboxed (like in Flatpack), and is crucial to keep the sandbox in place.
But removing features in the name of such pseudo security (that's what I meant by pseudo) is a dumb move.
You know, when you build something you implement first the stuff that matters most, and leave secondary features for later.
There's just a middle ground between security and functionality and in my opinion Wayland is skewed too much towards security (on the other hand X is also skewed too much on functionality in this context, or lack of security, but if I had to pick between these 2 evils, I'd pick functionality).
Wayland compositors in major desktops are still unstable and don't offer more than basic functionality because they are not finished yet. Every sane person would prefer X11 (which works and is stable, albeit with an inferior design) at this point in time.
- Likes 1
Comment
-
Originally posted by starshipeleven View Postlol, confirmed, that opinion is straight trolling. X abandoned network transparency decades ago.
Comment
-
I find quite amusing all this focus on Wayland security even as the project Wayland has decided that we should use client-side decorations which are less "secure" than server-side decorations (which allow the server to display special for different security level (like Qubes OS do)).
That said does anyone know if this Wayland remote support will allow to display remotely only one window? That's very handy sometimes instead of having to display a whole desktop..
Comment
-
Originally posted by kaprikawn View Post
Snippet from that opinon
[...]
"I've never seen tearing" - Works on my machine, therefore it doesn't exist. Flawless argument, absolutely watertight. They've got me there.
[...]
Then I truely feel like I'm in the 21 first century.
And yes, I started using Linux in the 20th century.
- Likes 1
Comment
Comment