> These seem to be intentional design decisions (marketed as being necessary for security, but really being power-user hostile) >> That's an unnecessarily abra

> These seem to be intentional design decisions (marketed as being necessary for security, but really being power-user hostile) >> That's an unnecessarily abrasive view: the Wayland protocol designers do not hate power users. For the sake of civility and discourse I just want to point out the quote you're responding to does not talk about hating power users. The OP clearly just says that the "decision [is] power-user hostile." That's an important difference, as one is talking about substance (i.e. the decisions) and the other is veering into personal attacks. It's easy to conflate the two and I've certainly done it, but I just wanted to point it out to try and de-escalate the conversation a bit. I also think it's reasonable to say that many security decisions in many contexts are "user hostile." Hostile design is an actual thing, where security and order are prioritized above convenience and functionality, and not simply an attack on "bad design"[0]. This is not to say all user hostile decisions are bad, but it's a trade-off. Asking for your password before every single interaction is user hostile (the user will never get in the flow[1]), but could be the right decision in certain contexts. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hostile_architecture [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flow_(psychology)