4 ms·

>backwards compatibility is pretty much disregarded. Wayland compositors provide backwards compatibility with most X11 apps via XWayland, I don't think it's fa

>backwards compatibility is pretty much disregarded. Wayland compositors provide backwards compatibility with most X11 apps via XWayland, I don't think it's fair to say that they completely disregard compatibility

znpy 6y ago
last time i checked remote desktop (ala vnc) was not really a thing and opening remote apps on the local display (ala ssh -X) wasn't a thing either. That's disregard for backwards compatibility to me. edit: which is not to shit on wayland itself, it's to complain about the general attitude which is like "just don't do that" or "oh that's old, we don't support that"
- chousuke 6y ago
  wayvnc and waypipe work just fine nowadays. I've actually used waypipe more often in the last year than I ever used ssh -X, thanks to a shift towards WFH :P It's sometimes useful to be able to run Firefox remotely from my workstation at the office.
p_l 6y ago
Due to how XWayland works, a lot of applications (sometimes critical ones) won't work under XWayland ever (pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard).
- phkahler 6y ago
  >> pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard It's supposed to fail hard. That isnt just a security hole in X, it's a total lack of security. The notion that any app should be able to monitor or manipulate any other app is archaic and wrong from a security perspective.
  - enriquto 6y ago
    There they go htop, netcat, kill, and the whole unix pipe system. No, thanks. Programs monitoring other programs is the very essence of computing for us greybeards, and you will take this from our cold, dead hands!
  - krageon 6y ago
    Maybe it's archaic and wrong to you. Maybe it's even a good idea to be able to configure this on a per-application basis. What isn't the case is that you get to know what is convenient and right in my workflow.
    - phkahler 6y ago
      Fair point. I think not allowing by default and having some means to grant permission is a decent idea, but implementation has to be right so people dont develop a habit of allowing it every time they're asked.
  - account42 6y ago
    > That isnt just a security hole in X, it's a total lack of security. That "security" is useless on a Desktop where you run all programs as the same user. If you want a platform to run locked down "apps" that's fine, just don't expect others to be happy with the cost of that "security" when it provides no benefit for them.
    - anthk 6y ago
      Exactly. Also, XTerm has a secure mode where the keyboard input is locked and no application can read from it ever.

znpy 6y ago

last time i checked remote desktop (ala vnc) was not really a thing and opening remote apps on the local display (ala ssh -X) wasn't a thing either. That's disregard for backwards compatibility to me. edit: which is not to shit on wayland itself, it's to complain about the general attitude which is like "just don't do that" or "oh that's old, we don't support that"

chousuke 6y ago
wayvnc and waypipe work just fine nowadays. I've actually used waypipe more often in the last year than I ever used ssh -X, thanks to a shift towards WFH :P It's sometimes useful to be able to run Firefox remotely from my workstation at the office.

p_l 6y ago

Due to how XWayland works, a lot of applications (sometimes critical ones) won't work under XWayland ever (pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard).

phkahler 6y ago
>> pretty much everything that works on interaction between X clients fails hard It's supposed to fail hard. That isnt just a security hole in X, it's a total lack of security. The notion that any app should be able to monitor or manipulate any other app is archaic and wrong from a security perspective.
- enriquto 6y ago
  There they go htop, netcat, kill, and the whole unix pipe system. No, thanks. Programs monitoring other programs is the very essence of computing for us greybeards, and you will take this from our cold, dead hands!
- krageon 6y ago
  Maybe it's archaic and wrong to you. Maybe it's even a good idea to be able to configure this on a per-application basis. What isn't the case is that you get to know what is convenient and right in my workflow.
  - phkahler 6y ago
    Fair point. I think not allowing by default and having some means to grant permission is a decent idea, but implementation has to be right so people dont develop a habit of allowing it every time they're asked.
- account42 6y ago
  > That isnt just a security hole in X, it's a total lack of security. That "security" is useless on a Desktop where you run all programs as the same user. If you want a platform to run locked down "apps" that's fine, just don't expect others to be happy with the cost of that "security" when it provides no benefit for them.
  - anthk 6y ago
    Exactly. Also, XTerm has a secure mode where the keyboard input is locked and no application can read from it ever.