Wayland's Wild Decade From v1.0 Release To Usable GNOME/KDE Desktop Support

[oiaohm]

Organization already uses Linux in production. I am using it in production at work.

So you are a place that already allows Linux desktops.

Yes, some things can be improved but saying that Windows is more secure than Linux is absurd.

What I am saying might seam absurd but its the reality. Organisation that have security tiering in there desktops have checklist of features that must be there to use the desktop at different security tiers.

https://malt.web.cern.ch/malt/global/malt-table/

Notice here at cern Windows is for the Hardened PC as in the secure ones. Linux and OS X is only for the non hardened.

The missing features are causing Linux Desktops not to get into the top tiers of different organisation desktop. Its the top tier that normally set the software policy on everything else.

[QUOTE=ALRBP;n1148981The attack we had at work targeted only Windows and mac workstations ; Linux workstations were safe and are the only one that are allowed for internal use without anti-malware protection.[/QUOTE]

Lets say you company policy says you have to deploy real-time malware protection.

https://www.clamav.net/documents/on-access-scanning

Simple you install clamav maybe add a few extra signatures turn on the on access scanning feature. This fairly much turns out to be like tits on bull. But its not a barrier to Linux deployment any more. Its not an arguement that someone who wants to make desktop management simple by reducing OSs can use or going to make deploying Linux more expensive.

Linux can be improved but there is no technical imitation blocking its adoption. You can do all the security/technical improvements you want, Linux will NOT become the reference desktop OS, because this is NOT the reason why Linux is not dominating the market.

This is wrong. To be the reference desktop OS in many organisations you have to get to the top security tier. We are basically down to 2-3 missing features causing Linux not to be able to tick the checklist off to be a top security tier desktop..

1) Application whitelisting. Third party applications that do this for Linux cost more than a Windows license in lots of cases. We need something like clamav in this class. So this box can be ticked cheaply at this stage.
2) Unified Central management freeipa is getting close. Same here the cost of the closed source to manage Linux desktop computers centrally also end up costing more than a Windows license.
3) information leakage issues on the desktop. Wayland stuff mostly fixes this. But we do need more applications to use wayland directly. There are commercial third party add on to X11 that cost 400 USD a seat to address this problem so over twice the price of the Windows license and cause lots of X11 programs to crash.

You should really go out of your world of programs and look at the real world of money.

The problem I have these missing security features patching them over with closed source solutions directly effects the real world money cost of deploying Linux desktops to the point they are not competitive on money let alone the lack of applications problem at times.

What we need to do (apart if we consider changing political/economic system; which I would like) is to convince companies that using/supporting Linux is good for their profit.

Get it we need these security features to make it possible in more cases to make the arguement that using Linux is good for their profit. Without fixes to these problems there are many cases where LInux Desktops are not good for company profit. Problem here to come the defacto standard in a company you need solution to work at all security tiers in business without being classed as major problem or with major costs todo that. Currently Linux desktops are not doing that.

There are some technical things blocking the Linux Desktop that cost a arm and a leg to work around using closed source third parties.

[ALRBP]

No there is a required set of technical changes and they require Wayland to come common deployed.

https://www.winhelponline.com/blog/c...vation-dialog/

This here talks about removing the security off UAC dialog on windows. Hang on you can screen shot the Linux desktop password dialogs without having todo something. Yes worse you can keylog what ever is input into them under X11. This gives the Linux desktop using X11 a lot lower security rating than Windows or OS X.

https://www.cyber.gov.au/publication...x-environments
Next this is Australian government if you are going to deploy a Linux desktop. Notice first item "Application whitelisting" OS/X and Windows have this built in. GNU/Linux desktops don't and it third party that may not may not work right.

So lots of GNU/Linux distributions are not Technically superior to Windows/macOS due to these areas.

GNU/Linux is close to being always technically better but its not quite there yet. Once it is always technically better than it comes down what you said. While we have these technical weakness lot deployments are off the cards. Problem is a lot of the places that these technical limitations will prevent from deploying Linux desktops are also places that set mandatory to use software on end users and if they only can use Windows or OS/X this is exactly what they force on everyone.

Windows and OS X position is not just commercial while those faults/features are not fixed/provided on the Linux side out the box.

Organization already uses Linux in production. I am using it in production at work. Yes, some things can be improved but saying that Windows is more secure than Linux is absurd. The attack we had at work targeted only Windows and mac workstations ; Linux workstations were safe and are the only one that are allowed for internal use without anti-malware protection. Linux can be improved but there is no technical imitation blocking its adoption. You can do all the security/technical improvements you want, Linux will NOT become the reference desktop OS, because this is NOT the reason why Linux is not dominating the market. You should really go out of your world of programs and look at the real world of money.
We do not live in a technocratic utopia but in a real capitalist world. What we need to do (apart if we consider changing political/economic system; which I would like) is to convince companies that using/supporting Linux is good for their profit. We need commercial, monetary arguments, not advanced technical discussion on security relatively to some potential attacks that barely ever happen in the Linux world and absolutely no one with an MBA would be able to understand.

[oiaohm]

People should really stop thinking that "the Year of the Linux Desktop" is linked to any kind of technical change on the GNU/Linux side. The necessary and sufficient conditions for "the Year of the Linux Desktop" to happen is having more compatible software and (much) more computers sold with Linux preinstalled.
This is a purely commercial issue; it has nothing to do with technical changes. GNU/Linux distributions are already superior to Windows/macOS technically but technical superiority is nothing in a capitalist world compared to commercial supremacy.

No there is a required set of technical changes and they require Wayland to come common deployed.

https://www.winhelponline.com/blog/capture-screenshot-uac-elevation-dialog/

This here talks about removing the security off UAC dialog on windows. Hang on you can screen shot the Linux desktop password dialogs without having todo something. Yes worse you can keylog what ever is input into them under X11. This gives the Linux desktop using X11 a lot lower security rating than Windows or OS X.

https://www.cyber.gov.au/publications/essential-eight-in-linux-environments

Next this is Australian government if you are going to deploy a Linux desktop. Notice first item "Application whitelisting" OS/X and Windows have this built in. GNU/Linux desktops don't and it third party that may not may not work right.

So lots of GNU/Linux distributions are not Technically superior to Windows/macOS due to these areas.

GNU/Linux is close to being always technically better but its not quite there yet. Once it is always technically better than it comes down what you said. While we have these technical weakness lot deployments are off the cards. Problem is a lot of the places that these technical limitations will prevent from deploying Linux desktops are also places that set mandatory to use software on end users and if they only can use Windows or OS/X this is exactly what they force on everyone.

Windows and OS X position is not just commercial while those faults/features are not fixed/provided on the Linux side out the box.

[ALRBP]

@starshipeleven
People should really stop thinking that "the Year of the Linux Desktop" is linked to any kind of technical change on the GNU/Linux side. The necessary and sufficient conditions for "the Year of the Linux Desktop" to happen is having more compatible software and (much) more computers sold with Linux preinstalled.
This is a purely commercial issue; it has nothing to do with technical changes. GNU/Linux distributions are already superior to Windows/macOS technically but technical superiority is nothing in a capitalist world compared to commercial supremacy.

[starshipeleven]

Yeah, well, that's how OpenGL works in general: somebody comes up with an extension first, it get adopted into some official version and then people start implementing it.

Comparing this to an OpenGL extension is disingenuous at best.
OpenGL extensions are... extensions, you can do without them (when they are introduced anyway) and it will be fine. If everyone uses them they get selected and integrated in core OpenGL spec and become mandatory.

Note how (vendor-created) extensions become mandatory AFTER everyone uses them, not AT INTRODUCTION.

EGLStreams is mandatory at introduction (for NVIDIA hardware) while only NVIDIA uses it. Yes it is technically generic and therefore better than CUDA or NVsomething API for media acceleration that can only be used by NVIDIA hardware, but it's still something none asked for and none else is using or even planning to use.

It's taking more than a fucking decade to migrate everything to Wayland already, if someone starts fondling with core components of the system again when will the Year of the Linux Desktop come?

[Gusar]

Gusar You did a very poor job on guessing my opinions.

I'm not guessing anything, your posts speak for themselves.

Compositors are free to exist.

This directly contradicts your previous post, which states: "There’s no need to deal with other compositors. There’s no benefit from dealing with other compositors. So why would they want to do that? Like I said, if people want to collaborate then they can just use Mutter and help develop it." (emphasis mine, but the entire statement is completely anti-everything that isn't Mutter)

It not Mutter’s job to deal with all the extra fragmentation and protocol scope creep.

Aha, so Mutter is allowed to be its own thing, while everything else is "fragmentation"? Yeah, no. Either other compositors are "free to exist", in which case protocols are needed, or nothing else is allowed to exist. You can't have it both ways.

duby229 Of course he's a troll. And I'm stupid for facilitating the trolling. But oh well, it's the end of the year, there's nothing to do, so I'm having fun seeing how much more 144Hz can manage to contradict himself and what kind of nonsense he'll come up with next.

[starshipeleven]

ubuntuweston There is no toxic behavior, at least not as 144Hz perceives it. Some of us are advocating for proper wayland protocols that would allow interoperability between different compositors, while 144Hz thinks only Mutter should exist and no protocols are needed because you should just use Mutter.

His perception is irrelevant, his posts are toxic behavior and he needs to be thrown out of the window like all his other past nicknames were (GhostOfFunk, Mentalist, whatever).

[duby229]

Gusar You did a very poor job on guessing my opinions. Please don’t try this again.

Compositors are free to exist. And we are all free to learn from their mistakes. The compositor developers just have to own their bugs and responsibilities. It not Mutter’s job to deal with all the extra fragmentation and protocol scope creep.

You keep saying scope creep, except the current situation is exactly the opposite of that, it's like massively inadequate scope....

EDIT: And do you sleep? Are you some kind of troll bot?

[tildearrow]

Gusar Sorry but that’s reality. There’s no need to deal with other compositors. There’s no benefit from dealing with other compositors.

So why would they want to do that? Like I said, if people want to collaborate then they can just use Mutter and help develop it. Like endlessm and Canonical did.

Stop already.

KDEfreaking exists.

[Gusar]

ubuntuweston There is no toxic behavior, at least not as 144Hz perceives it. Some of us are advocating for proper wayland protocols that would allow interoperability between different compositors, while 144Hz thinks only Mutter should exist and no protocols are needed because you should just use Mutter.