Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Prolific Red Hat Developer Starts Up "Wayland Itches" Project

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • xfcemint
    replied
    Originally posted by Weasel View Post
    If you can't trust a specific process then run it as another user. It's basic unix 101.
    Um, that is a workaround, not a real solution. Running a process as a different user has many drawbacks.

    Or: why would an OS force me to do that? Why doesn't an OS isolate user processes properly in the first place? Why are you insisting on a cubersome workaround, instead of just having process isolation work properly?

    Mind you, process isolation features are built both into hardware (page tables denying access to memory of other processes) and software (one process cannot snoop on network of another). Why do CPU and OS manufacturers go into lenghts to isolate processes, if it is so unimportant as you claim?

    It is sad to see an obviously experienced computer user like you not knowing the very basics of modern computing philosophy.
    And by not knowing these very basic issues you put yourself straight back into the league of plain amateurs.

    Untill you retract your statement, your opinions have no importance for me.

    ***
    Also, where are other knowledgeable users of this forum, who should immediately come into my defence after someone posts crap like this. Most people on this forum know that a program which uses too much memory is bad. Where are expert users who know that process isolation is important? Come here and slam down Weasels ridiculous opinions. Show your expertise!
    Last edited by xfcemint; 05-16-2019, 12:25 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post

    I never claimed that.
    Then stop wasting others' time here, defending Nvidia's foul behavior. Back on topic - compositor developers should not clean up Nvidia's mess. And if users want Linux support, they should use hardware that has it properly.
    Last edited by shmerl; 05-16-2019, 11:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by Vistaus View Post
    Wait, did you just criticize X for the first time? I thought you always thought there was nothing wrong with it?
    I honestly don't remember ever saying X11 is perfect. It sucks in many areas, but it is useable. I just consider Wayland beyond hope because it's literally unuseable lacking essential features. All the pseudo-security in the world isn't going to save it from that.

    It's like being forced to use Windows 10, which is terrible, but at least it's better than a system (Wayland in this analogy) which has no internet connection at all "for safety".

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by the_scx View Post
    To be honest, in my opinion it shows that all this security-related hysteria is pointless, since this "protection" can be bypassed one way or anther. In fact, it only causes problems with various applications that worked well under X11 but are half-working or not-working under Wayland.
    Amen, this sums up why Wayland will forever be garbage.

    Leave a comment:


  • Weasel
    replied
    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
    This is ridiculous. It is called process isolation, and it is a highly desired feature.

    No, you can't trust your own processes. Because your 'own' process is actually a closed source game or a 3D renderer, and you have no contol over the source code. Or it might be a trojan.

    An OS which can run untrusted processes with no security issues is a great benefit for the consumers.
    If you can't trust a specific process then run it as another user. It's basic unix 101.

    Originally posted by xfcemint View Post
    If process isolation is not an issue, then perhaps ZombieLoad is also a non-issue. I mean, ZombieLoad is just about not trusting your own processes. And perhaps computer viruses are a non-issue either because, well, they are just some user processes, and all those should be fully trusted.
    If that's what ZombieLoad does, yeah, it's a non-issue. But unfortunately it can also read kernel memory or memory from outside of the VM, so no, it's dangerous.

    Leave a comment:


  • miabrahams
    replied
    Originally posted by shmerl View Post

    You can, because Nvidia ignores Linux. It's not the job of compositor developers to clean up the mess that Nvidia created. I have no respect for Nvidia and their practices, but if you are buying their hardware with broken drivers - do it at your own risk. That's my point. Developers should not support that in Wayland case.
    Nvidia developers have contributed EGLStreams backends for both Mutter and KWin. In what way do they ignore Linux?

    Leave a comment:


  • renox
    replied
    Originally posted by DoMiNeLa10 View Post

    As much as I love X, networking should not be a part of your windowing system, and solutions like VNC are the right way to go.
    What stupid "by fiat" decree! As much as I like webpages, networking shouldn't be a part of your solution: VNC and Word are the right way to view documents.

    Leave a comment:


  • DanL
    replied
    Originally posted by shmerl View Post
    Claims don't make them support Linux properly. Come back to this topic with your claims when they'll upstream their driver.
    I never claimed that. Come back to this topic when you learn how to read and write properly.

    Leave a comment:


  • starshipeleven
    replied
    Originally posted by debianxfce View Post
    Wayland was never intended as a replacement for X.
    That's the article writer's own opinion, which is wrong.

    The developer said in the blog linked by the very fucking article:

    "They got the headline wrong, though, it's not a new X server, it's a tiny display server + compositing manager."

    it's not a new X server != never intended as a replacement for X

    it's not a new X server = this is a display server using a different protocol

    Leave a comment:


  • shmerl
    replied
    Originally posted by DanL View Post

    No, you are nonsensical because you are redefining the word 'ignore' and considering out of tree kernel modules as "ignoring" the kernel. Words have meanings. Use them properly and follow the requirements. Otherwise, it only creates problems.
    Not interested in demagoguery and defense of Nvidia's mess with claims of Linux support. Claims don't make them support Linux properly. Come back to this topic with your claims when they'll upstream their driver.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X