X Window System Turns 38 Years Old

[binarybanana]

Wayland does not take away, it forces issues to be solved the right way. Lets take screen recording for example, the classic "muh features".
Do you know how that works under Xorg? A application just reads the output buffer, any application can do that, at any time. Now we have a proper API for that, with user control and the lowest latency available(1 frame), that is secure, where the user has full control about it and does not just have to blindly trust the application.

And we can do that with all the other misfeatures of Xorg, like keybinding via allowing every application to just read every keypress at all time. How about a clean modern API for that, where the user has control about what a application is allowed to do.

This is just embarrassing, and just does not work in a future where not every application can be fully trusted.

Of course I know how screenshots and capture works on Xorg. This might be shocking to you or even confuse and anger you, but I still prefer it over the Wayland approach.
See, this is where I fendamentally disagree with the Wayland mindset: Wayland considers my desktop to be under constant threat of attack from rogue applications siphoning off my data for nefarious purposes. But that just feels wrong to me. To me my desktop is the castle, so to me the security boundary is getting on my system in the first place. If some malware gets there I'm hosed one way or another, no help from Xorg nececessary. I only install and use software I consider trustworthy, at least on bare metal. Wayland instead tries do defend against a threat that's already gotten past the walls and is on the inside. To do that there are now locks on all your doors and to some of them you don't even get the keys. You have to ask the security officer to get anywhere and sometimes he win't even let you. For your own safety, of course. That's insane. Who would want to live like this?
There is, for example, no way to write a compositor-agnostic drop-down terminal. It has to be written as an extension using proprietary APIs specific to the compositor. Bet then, what's the point? Regular apps aren't allowed to do it, but a compositor extension is fine. So what's the fucking point? Write the keyligger as GNOME extension, then.
Also, you mock Xorg being a wild west where anything goes, but where is the keybinding API for Wayland? As far as I know this is still an unsolved problem. At least I hear a lot of complaints about things stuff like push-to-talk not working.

You know what's embarassing? Even Android's display system is more full featured than Wayland. You can actually draw over other applications and even at any position you want. There's also a way to register actions to pressing a certain key combo. Think about that.

The idea that you can have a full featured display server by giving you a limited number of restrictive APIs is crazy. There's always going to be a long tail of uses you are going to sweep under the rug that way. Not in scope, too much work, no you don't actually want that. By all means, something better than Xorg would be nice, but fuck that patronizing shit.

[tildearrow]

idiot.

And this is why Wayland isn't getting better - you resort to personal attacks in an attempt to win the debate.

[tildearrow]

contribute to the alternative.

Wish we could, but look at Wayland maintainers' attitude and the fact they somewhat favor GNOME, so anything that doesn't feel GNOME-ish (like flexibility and customization) is out of the picture for them...

[sinepgib]

See, this is where I fendamentally disagree with the Wayland mindset: Wayland considers my desktop to be under constant threat of attack from rogue applications siphoning off my data for nefarious purposes. But that just feels wrong to me. To me my desktop is the castle, so to me the security boundary is getting on my system in the first place. If some malware gets there I'm hosed one way or another, no help from Xorg nececessary. I only install and use software I consider trustworthy, at least on bare metal.

But here's the deal: if you want the Linux to actually be usable by a wider public, you need to allow non-technical users who really don't know how to apply best security practices to use it. You may be very wise with what you execute, but the average user is not. So, you need your defaults to be secure for the average user. That is what Wayland attempts to solve. Depending on the user being tech-savvy is even worse than counting on the sufficiently disciplined programmer.

[Duff~]

old software bad

[Weasel]

Of course I know how screenshots and capture works on Xorg. This might be shocking to you or even confuse and anger you, but I still prefer it over the Wayland approach.
See, this is where I fendamentally disagree with the Wayland mindset: Wayland considers my desktop to be under constant threat of attack from rogue applications siphoning off my data for nefarious purposes. But that just feels wrong to me. To me my desktop is the castle, so to me the security boundary is getting on my system in the first place. If some malware gets there I'm hosed one way or another, no help from Xorg nececessary. I only install and use software I consider trustworthy, at least on bare metal. Wayland instead tries do defend against a threat that's already gotten past the walls and is on the inside. To do that there are now locks on all your doors and to some of them you don't even get the keys. You have to ask the security officer to get anywhere and sometimes he win't even let you. For your own safety, of course. That's insane. Who would want to live like this?
There is, for example, no way to write a compositor-agnostic drop-down terminal. It has to be written as an extension using proprietary APIs specific to the compositor. Bet then, what's the point? Regular apps aren't allowed to do it, but a compositor extension is fine. So what's the fucking point? Write the keyligger as GNOME extension, then.
Also, you mock Xorg being a wild west where anything goes, but where is the keybinding API for Wayland? As far as I know this is still an unsolved problem. At least I hear a lot of complaints about things stuff like push-to-talk not working.

You know what's embarassing? Even Android's display system is more full featured than Wayland. You can actually draw over other applications and even at any position you want. There's also a way to register actions to pressing a certain key combo. Think about that.

The idea that you can have a full featured display server by giving you a limited number of restrictive APIs is crazy. There's always going to be a long tail of uses you are going to sweep under the rug that way. Not in scope, too much work, no you don't actually want that. By all means, something better than Xorg would be nice, but fuck that patronizing shit.

Amen.

[dpeterc]

But here's the deal: if you want the Linux to actually be usable by a wider public, you need to allow non-technical users who really don't know how to apply best security practices to use it. You may be very wise with what you execute, but the average user is not. So, you need your defaults to be secure for the average user. That is what Wayland attempts to solve. Depending on the user being tech-savvy is even worse than counting on the sufficiently disciplined programmer.

Is a non-tech savvy person allowed to know the administrator password to install new software on their own computer? Probably yes. So how can we protect the user from themselves?
Any third party application will have full access to disk, and we worry if it will be able to read a pixel of some other window or log keystrokes?
All this security hoopla of X11 vs Wayland is largely invented, as it solves the problem, which can not be solved at that level, by making lots of new problems.

If you want full security and a nanny OS, you have to go the Apple way. Only allow installing of signed applications from the app store.
I have an M1 based Mac, and my own applications do not run, if I don't sign them (and all the libraries). And to sign them, I have to apply for certificate, pay the fee, allow Apple to revoke the certificate and block my applications, as they see fit.
If Linux ever becomes like that, I will stop using it.

[sinepgib]

Is a non-tech savvy person allowed to know the administrator password to install new software on their own computer? Probably yes. So how can we protect the user from themselves?
Any third party application will have full access to disk, and we worry if it will be able to read a pixel of some other window or log keystrokes?
All this security hoopla of X11 vs Wayland is largely invented, as it solves the problem, which can not be solved at that level, by making lots of new problems.

That's a good point, since they are likely to have that password if they own the computer. But the Wayland vs X11 shenanigans apply to non-root applications. A user without the admin password can still get compromised with X11, while it'd be at least somewhat less likely with Wayland.

If you want full security and a nanny OS, you have to go the Apple way. Only allow installing of signed applications from the app store.
I have an M1 based Mac, and my own applications do not run, if I don't sign them (and all the libraries). And to sign them, I have to apply for certificate, pay the fee, allow Apple to revoke the certificate and block my applications, as they see fit.
If Linux ever becomes like that, I will stop using it.

Luckily, "Linux" won't become like that ever. Since it works by creating multiple distros catered to different users, and a sizable fraction of the user base for Linux (quite the majority currently) wants a greater level of control, you'll always have a distro that doesn't nanny you. That doesn't mean you don't need a distro that is like that for the average user to be able to run it.
And that's pretty much my point, you take it as if you'll have no option but to use it and as if it was a personal attack to your intelligence, when it isn't. X11 will be around and distros preferring it will always arise. Even if X.org decides to drop it, which IMO is unlikely, the number of people interested is enough for them to maintain a fork in the future. But for the rest, Wayland is a more appropriate approach.

[Old Grouch]

But here's the deal: if you want the Linux to actually be usable by a wider public, you need to allow non-technical users who really don't know how to apply best security practices to use it. You may be very wise with what you execute, but the average user is not. So, you need your defaults to be secure for the average user. That is what Wayland attempts to solve. Depending on the user being tech-savvy is even worse than counting on the sufficiently disciplined programmer.

I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with functionality that technically savvy users need (or maybe, want) not being available because of simplification, which is one of the criticisms levelled at GNOME. Sensible, secure defaults are a great idea. Missing functionality, less so.

[sinepgib]

I don't have a problem with that. I do have a problem with functionality that technically savvy users need (or maybe, want) not being available because of simplification, which is one of the criticisms levelled at GNOME. Sensible, secure defaults are a great idea. Missing functionality, less so.

Yeah, I agree with that. But that said, I insist, while they probably want to, the nature of the Linux community pretty much makes it really unlikely that they can force you to switch to Wayland. Just as they couldn't make you switch to GNOME 3, because the attempt resulted in GNOME 2 being forked as MATE.