Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

GNOME Shell + Mutter 40 Beta Released With Wayland Improvements, Overview Redesign

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

  • #71
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    There is a bigger pool of users who could want to use Linux who cannot due to X11 server not meeting security requirements. This make the move to Wayland mandatory.
    yes i am happy to say that i use wayland for like 2 years now on AMD hardware.

    i am privat person without government contract/NDA whatsoever but my level of security is high i only have encrypted SSD to run linux and all my external harddrives are alyo encrypted.

    i really think this anti-linux agenda from the government is not only conected to security it is also conected to politics

    lets face it people like bill gates / rothschild they hate FLOSS and they protect their Closed Source imperium.

    Comment


    • #72
      oiaohm My bad, maybe "meaningless" was not the best word. I meant that if I answer you next saturday this post will be very old and I would be just dragging this conversation.
      However I'm really interested in the data you shared, I just didn't have time to dig into it yet

      Comment


      • #73
        oiaohm

        One thing though, while I'm all in favor of using free and/or open source software in government computers, I don't see it happening anytime soon for 2 main reasons:
        1. Microsoft Office
        2. Public workers are usually not tech savvy and prefer using Windows

        Comment


        • #74
          Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
          yes i am happy to say that i use wayland for like 2 years now on AMD hardware.

          i am privat person without government contract/NDA whatsoever but my level of security is high i only have encrypted SSD to run linux and all my external harddrives are alyo encrypted.

          i really think this anti-linux agenda from the government is not only conected to security it is also conected to politics

          lets face it people like bill gates / rothschild they hate FLOSS and they protect their Closed Source imperium.
          I would agree more than security. But 100 percent losing in the security game makes parties avoid having to show they have been bought by Microsoft or some other party.

          Encrypted SSD without the frameworks run screen lockers properly is a problem. The core things the governments security lists want everyone should really want.

          Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
          oiaohm

          One thing though, while I'm all in favor of using free and/or open source software in government computers, I don't see it happening anytime soon for 2 main reasons:
          1. Microsoft Office
          2. Public workers are usually not tech savvy and prefer using Windows
          Microsoft Office not as much as one would think. Government National archive of fairly much every country uses LibreOffice not MS Office for the serous problem of needing to open old documents in future.

          Public workers generally use what they are assigned. India and Malaysia have more Linux desktop usage in their governments but they have lowered their software security requirements to-do it. There have been many real world deployments that 85%+ of government workers in every don't give a rats what their desktop OS is. Yes India case, Malaysia case Munich... There is a very long list of companies and countries that have done desktop conversions. The majority non tech savvy only care that they have the software to-do their job not what the OS is.

          Interesting enough a non tech savvy is not in government is not likely to sign off on a solution that the secruity department tells them is insecure and they could be held liable for. This is the top barrier.

          Biggest barrier like it or not is poor security on things that really should work like lock screens. xscreenserver has the best lock screen you can do under X11 and a person can demonstrate holes in its protections so confirming it fails government requirements for basic security stuff. Yes of course a paid Microsoft sales person is going to pull this. Pulling this they don't have to bribe people just plain out threaten them if they deploy the open source desktop solution they could be held liable for the security breach and being liable for a government security breach can be years in jail. Poor security gives a very cheap blackmail hand.


          Comment


          • #75
            Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
            I would agree more than security. But 100 percent losing in the security game makes parties avoid having to show they have been bought by Microsoft or some other party.
            Encrypted SSD without the frameworks run screen lockers properly is a problem. The core things the governments security lists want everyone should really want.
            in the past there was a simple solution to the X11 problem: shut down your computer if you walk away.
            if a system is very fast and boots very fast because of the fast SSD you do not lose so much time with a shutdown.
            so your claim that you can ONLY fix this with wayland screen locker it wrong you can solve it by shutdown to.

            also the screen lock thing has weakness to: you cold do a cold ram attack on the system cool down the ram and place it in new system and read the keys in the ram. so SSD encryption is only save if you do shutdown your pc. if you only do screen lock they can still hack you.

            Comment


            • #76
              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
              Microsoft Office not as much as one would think. Government National archive of fairly much every country uses LibreOffice not MS Office for the serous problem of needing to open old documents in future.
              I wouldn't be concerned about opening old documents given Microsoft impressive care for backwards compatibility.
              Especially when it comes to Office. I mean, they are still keeping the leap year bug from Lotus 1-2-3.
              Document formats must be open, but that doesn't mean using LibreOffice.

              Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
              Interesting enough a non tech savvy is not in government is not likely to sign off on a solution that the secruity department tells them is insecure and they could be held liable for. This is the top barrier.

              Biggest barrier like it or not is poor security on things that really should work like lock screens. xscreenserver has the best lock screen you can do under X11 and a person can demonstrate holes in its protections so confirming it fails government requirements for basic security stuff. Yes of course a paid Microsoft sales person is going to pull this. Pulling this they don't have to bribe people just plain out threaten them if they deploy the open source desktop solution they could be held liable for the security breach and being liable for a government security breach can be years in jail. Poor security gives a very cheap blackmail hand.
              I don't argue about the security concerns, but saying that it's the biggest barrier is just ridiculous.
              • Backwards compatibility
              • Application distribution
              • Binary compatibility
              • Hardware support
              • Software support
              Would still be huge issues even if the lockscreen were airtight.
              Besides Debian, RHEL, SLED are using Wayland by default, but still Linux adoption doesn't seem to rise. At all.

              Comment


              • #77
                Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
                I wouldn't be concerned about opening old documents given Microsoft impressive care for backwards compatibility.
                Especially when it comes to Office. I mean, they are still keeping the leap year bug from Lotus 1-2-3.
                Document formats must be open, but that doesn't mean using LibreOffice.
                I don't argue about the security concerns, but saying that it's the biggest barrier is just ridiculous.
                • Backwards compatibility
                • Application distribution
                • Binary compatibility
                • Hardware support
                • Software support
                Would still be huge issues even if the lockscreen were airtight.
                Besides Debian, RHEL, SLED are using Wayland by default, but still Linux adoption doesn't seem to rise. At all.
                you can see logically that the lockscreen problem is not the main problem because you could just shutdown after 15 minutes of no user input.
                yes to start again will take a little more time than just a lockscreen but on modern systems with SSD it is not that big problem.

                so because of the shutdown option your points have bigger impact in my point of view.

                Comment


                • #78
                  Originally posted by Qaridarium View Post
                  in the past there was a simple solution to the X11 problem: shut down your computer if you walk away.
                  if a system is very fast and boots very fast because of the fast SSD you do not lose so much time with a shutdown.
                  so your claim that you can ONLY fix this with wayland screen locker it wrong you can solve it by shutdown to.

                  also the screen lock thing has weakness to: you cold do a cold ram attack on the system cool down the ram and place it in new system and read the keys in the ram. so SSD encryption is only save if you do shutdown your pc. if you only do screen lock they can still hack you.
                  This is arguement that does not fly. The government security requirements mandate a screen-locker so that applications can keep on running.

                  Originally posted by JackLilhammers View Post
                  I don't argue about the security concerns, but saying that it's the biggest barrier is just ridiculous.
                  • Backwards compatibility
                  • Application distribution
                  • Binary compatibility
                  • Hardware support
                  • Software support
                  Would still be huge issues even if the lockscreen were airtight.
                  Besides Debian, RHEL, SLED are using Wayland by default, but still Linux adoption doesn't seem to rise. At all.
                  This you have made a mistake I said I picked screen locker as one of 1000+ points covered government security documents.

                  If you go though Australian, USA, UK and China government documents on requirements for computer security you can find defines and mandate requirements for Backwards compatibility, Application distribution and Binary compatibility. Fun part here is government security documents don't only mandate binary compatibility they also mandate intentional binary incompatibility on security grounds.

                  Fun point backwards compatibility the reasons why xscreenlocker with X11 protocol is not secure also effects you ability to-do backwards compatibility in a secure way to the point you cannot. The reality is failure to provide something that can have a functional screen locker in the Australian computer security requirements means you have failed 65 different points of the main document listing them all security features required because you don't have the functionality to implement them. The inability to implement a screen locker is a tip of a ice berg. Yes implementing a screen locker does not mean you pass the other 64 points that are not screen locking just means you have a piece of the functionality you require to implement them.

                  Gnome and KDE with the following:
                  https://lwn.net/Articles/834329/
                  with cgroups are in fact implementing something on list of mandated features.

                  Does using wayland by default tick all of the government security requirements no it does not and never will. Screen locker if you cannot work it out is one of you simple resource controls. If you cannot do the a simple resource controls you already failed the government requirements so you not in the running for particular contracts so there is no point implementing the extra features to get those contacts right.

                  So now that Debian, RHEL, SLED have Wayland by default they have functional screen locker when you have AMD/Intel graphics there is now reasons for many parties to fund development of other features to meet other government security requirements on the desktop to be able to win different contracts.

                  Yes NVIDIA being a jackass and not providing functional drivers for Wayland is not helping Debian, RHEL, SLED win government contracts. Do note what you said Wayland by default but that is with a fall back to X11 when their installer hits Nvidia so now insecure so no longer meets government requirements so get excluded from winning X contract for desktops in X department. So Linux adoption government is being retarded by Nvidia crappy drivers. Lot of ways different Linux distributions could win more government desktop contracts by dropping Nvidia binary driver support completely.

                  Companies like RHEL/IBM at some point will have make the hard choice against Nvidia if Nvidia does not lift their game. There is too much money they are missing out on to keep on tolerating Nvidia broken drivers long term. This is not what people with Nvidia card want to hear. The government security requirements at some point will force RHEL/IBM and others hands behind Gnome and KDE to remove Nvidia support if Nvidia does not provide drivers that can support Wayland.

                  JackLilhammers something to remember government with related companies desktop contracts are billions of dollars of profit every year to may parties. We are talking huge amounts of money on the table that a person the best contract can win. A general person starting out user of Linux is not money to pay Linux Developer wages. We may not like it but money does effect peoples actions.

                  Comment


                  • #79
                    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
                    This is arguement that does not fly. The government security requirements mandate a screen-locker so that applications can keep on running.
                    This you have made a mistake I said I picked screen locker as one of 1000+ points covered government security documents.
                    If you go though Australian, USA, UK and China government documents on requirements for computer security you can find defines and mandate requirements for Backwards compatibility, Application distribution and Binary compatibility. Fun part here is government security documents don't only mandate binary compatibility they also mandate intentional binary incompatibility on security grounds.
                    Fun point backwards compatibility the reasons why xscreenlocker with X11 protocol is not secure also effects you ability to-do backwards compatibility in a secure way to the point you cannot. The reality is failure to provide something that can have a functional screen locker in the Australian computer security requirements means you have failed 65 different points of the main document listing them all security features required because you don't have the functionality to implement them. The inability to implement a screen locker is a tip of a ice berg. Yes implementing a screen locker does not mean you pass the other 64 points that are not screen locking just means you have a piece of the functionality you require to implement them.
                    Gnome and KDE with the following:
                    https://lwn.net/Articles/834329/
                    with cgroups are in fact implementing something on list of mandated features.
                    Does using wayland by default tick all of the government security requirements no it does not and never will. Screen locker if you cannot work it out is one of you simple resource controls. If you cannot do the a simple resource controls you already failed the government requirements so you not in the running for particular contracts so there is no point implementing the extra features to get those contacts right.
                    So now that Debian, RHEL, SLED have Wayland by default they have functional screen locker when you have AMD/Intel graphics there is now reasons for many parties to fund development of other features to meet other government security requirements on the desktop to be able to win different contracts.
                    Yes NVIDIA being a jackass and not providing functional drivers for Wayland is not helping Debian, RHEL, SLED win government contracts. Do note what you said Wayland by default but that is with a fall back to X11 when their installer hits Nvidia so now insecure so no longer meets government requirements so get excluded from winning X contract for desktops in X department. So Linux adoption government is being retarded by Nvidia crappy drivers. Lot of ways different Linux distributions could win more government desktop contracts by dropping Nvidia binary driver support completely.
                    Companies like RHEL/IBM at some point will have make the hard choice against Nvidia if Nvidia does not lift their game. There is too much money they are missing out on to keep on tolerating Nvidia broken drivers long term. This is not what people with Nvidia card want to hear. The government security requirements at some point will force RHEL/IBM and others hands behind Gnome and KDE to remove Nvidia support if Nvidia does not provide drivers that can support Wayland.
                    JackLilhammers something to remember government with related companies desktop contracts are billions of dollars of profit every year to may parties. We are talking huge amounts of money on the table that a person the best contract can win. A general person starting out user of Linux is not money to pay Linux Developer wages. We may not like it but money does effect peoples actions.
                    the argument that shutdown fix the X11 security problem is perfectly logical and it does FLY.
                    but you do not talk about security or logic you talk about corrupt and totally failed government who Microsoft writes the rules.
                    yes if microsoft writes the rules then yes linux allways lose even if you fix any security problem for example by "shutdown" your shit computer if you leave it alone.

                    believe it or not but your race to win government contract will always fail if microsoft writes the rules.

                    this is all known tactics of microsoft : https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halloween_documents

                    believe it or not but Open-Source/FLOSS and community developed software(not only a company drop opensource code) is the main factor of IT security.

                    this means Microsoft Windows IS NOT and i repeat it for you: IS NOT secure.

                    Microsoft Windows does not fit into Government computation. Windows is a joke.

                    but Microsoft by bribery of Politicians they write the rules so they win all government contract.. what a joke.

                    and by this fact alone all you said is a "Joke" and you can never beat this totally corrupt bribery fun party by follow their rules.

                    yes you can try but you will always fail.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X