Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

OBS Studio Now Ready With Wayland Capture Support

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

  • jo-erlend
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    I'm a desktop Linux user, not a cloud supervisor, does it ring a bell?
    I think that what Linux users want the most, is easier access to software. Easier access to software means higher levels of security are necessary. That will add some complications that people will have to deal with for the time being, but I see no reason why they have to remain complicated forever. Containerization is definitely the way to go for mainstream distributions. Their use shouldn't be enforced by DE's and such, but that's a separate issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    (bla bla bla)
    I'm a desktop Linux user, not a cloud supervisor, does it ring a bell?

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    Which I as a file browser dev couldn't give a flying fuck about the exact definition because what matters to me is:
    1) Flatpak is not fit for an app like a file browser which I hoped to distribute as a flatpak.
    2) Whatever happened to all the other systems of security inherent for a Linux (therefore unix) desktop? To me this is plenty, I don't need yet another layer of security on top of it.
    The reality is if you had to make File browser to Rainbow Series Standards you would also be fairly screwed making a file browser as well if you are complaining about the flatpak limitations.
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rainbow_Series
    Yes security standards from the 1980s-1990s when I am talking Rainbow Series so still 20 years off current.
    The security inherent in Unix is not that great you are talking 1970s security here.

    There is file manager on flathub.
    https://flathub.org/apps/details/org.kde.dolphin
    https://github.com/flathub/org.kde.d...e.dolphin.json

    So it not impossible to make a file manager application that works inside flatpak because someone else already has. Ok there are going to be limitations. Wrapping a file browser in a strict selinux profile is going to cause limitations to what the file browser can do as well(yes implementing Rainbow Series stuff in the year 2000 on Linux with selinux).

    cl333r like it or not you on security stuff if you are depending on Unix class security you are horrible out of date. Containers or having to support multi "Linux Security Modules" pick your poison.

    I do expect flatpak portals will need expanding in places for some special features some file managers will want.

    Please also note cl333r gnome and kde are working on run everything in containers using systemd. So in time it will not matter if your application is shipped with flatpak or shipped with distribution it will have to deal with the fact it sand-boxed inside a container with the cgroups system providing limitations.
    Last edited by oiaohm; 01 April 2021, 10:38 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by intelfx View Post

    Incorrect, portals are simply a set of new D-Bus APIs for common desktop operations, invented with containers and fine-grained access control in mind. But definitely not limited to Flatpak.
    Interface toolkits like GTK3 and Qt5 implement transparent support for portals
    https://docs.flatpak.org/en/latest/s...rmissions.html

    Which I as a file browser dev couldn't give a flying fuck about the exact definition because what matters to me is:
    1) Flatpak is not fit for an app like a file browser which I hoped to distribute as a flatpak.
    2) Whatever happened to all the other systems of security inherent for a Linux (therefore unix) desktop? To me this is plenty, I don't need yet another layer of security on top of it.

    Leave a comment:


  • plasticbomb1986
    replied
    YAAAAY! Finally its working, i can record gameplay when im playin games with DXVK/VK! Now just have to figure out the proper settings for smooth record.

    Leave a comment:


  • intelfx
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    For those that don't know Flatpak Portals is just a name for libraries managed/encapsulated by flatpak, e.g. Qt, gtk, etc, because "portals" sounds like a software hole into another dimension that gives you super powers, but it's just flatpak's way to call libraries.
    Incorrect, portals are simply a set of new D-Bus APIs for common desktop operations, invented with containers and fine-grained access control in mind. But definitely not limited to Flatpak.
    Last edited by intelfx; 01 April 2021, 01:25 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    Which still sucks for me because I have a file browser I wanted to release as a flatpak only to learn this kind of applications can't be ported to flatpak without losing vital functionality.
    Its the trade off unfortunately. There is no portal made for getting the information a file browser wants to display.

    Containerisation is changing things. "system extension images" coming in systemd will also make doing a useful file manager tricker. Also in time could provide another route todo a Linux Distribution Neutral runtime of course this will equal being sandboxed again so no longer seeing the real file system directly.

    The file browser problem is going to get more complex over time. Sooner or latter someone will have to-do a host access portal for file browsers because direct libc/syscalls will not be seeing the true system picture any more just what the container the file manager is in is showing.

    Leave a comment:


  • cl333r
    replied
    Originally posted by oiaohm View Post
    Saying Flatpak portals is just libraries means you have missed the functionality there to being inside sandbox and then perform action outside sandbox.
    Which still sucks for me because I have a file browser I wanted to release as a flatpak only to learn this kind of applications can't be ported to flatpak without losing vital functionality.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by uid313 View Post
    Now if only the Synaptic package manager could get support for Wayland too, then that would be great.
    Wayland doesn't let applications run as root so it needs Synaptic to do some changes, such as using pkexec.
    This is true and false at the same time that Wayland doesn't let applications run as root.
    https://github.com/mvo5/synaptic/iss...ment-509029135

    The temporary workaround in the synaptic bug report here mentions the xhost command with the xhost command you can tell Xwayland to allow root user applications to connect to it out the box XWayland correctly rejects any attempt to connect from any user that is not the user Xwayland is running as . So while Synaptic is a X11 application it still can be made work on Wayland desktops by jumping though the right hoops.

    Now once you move to a pure Wayland application it is still possible to run as application root and have your primary desktop as a different user but you are now needing item like Waypipe.

    So Wayland does not totally block running applications as root just if you want todo that there is going to be extra steps and software required. Yes Waypipe for pure wayland applications and Xwayland with correct xhost command for X11 applications then you can run applications on Wayland desktop as normal user and application as root user.

    Ideal world is Synaptic changes so it GUI does not need to run as root this has not been a good for a very long time. Root user under Linux has lot of a ability to-do system harm right down to totally bricking hardware so you really don't want any more software running as root than has to. Yes the GUI part of Synaptic really has no valid reason to be running as root.

    Leave a comment:


  • oiaohm
    replied
    Originally posted by cl333r View Post
    For those that don't know Flatpak Portals is just a name for libraries managed/encapsulated by flatpak, e.g. Qt, gtk, etc, because "portals" sounds like a software hole into another dimension that gives you super powers, but it's just flatpak's way to call libraries.
    Flatpak Portals is another dimension thing its part libraries. Remember flatpak installed applications run inside a sandbox. Flatpak portals allows interface from inside the sandbox to the host system normally done by dbus.

    Saying Flatpak portals is just libraries means you have missed the functionality there to being inside sandbox and then perform action outside sandbox. Flatpak portals open close save dialog stuff can allow saving files that the application inside the sandbox of flatpak cannot directly access with your normal libc open command or Linux kernel syscalls.

    Leave a comment:

Working...
X