3 ms·

> You are forgetting that you actually can sandbox and contain apps. Under X11, doing that and then giving the app access to the display is dangerous. Under Way

> You are forgetting that you actually can sandbox and contain apps. Under X11, doing that and then giving the app access to the display is dangerous. Under Wayland it is not. This matters for Flatpak, Snap, firejail, etc. I addressed this in my very post and forgot no such thing. Firejail can and does sandbox X11. > I have seen multiple such arguments that you can “sandbox” X11 access, with no proof or really bad compromises; I don’t believe it. How is there no proof? it exists in Firejail at this moment.. The compromises are those which one has to live with on Wayland per sē: naturally things that need access don't work, and Nvidia card acceleration does not work. https://firejail.wordpress.com/documentation-2/x11-guide/ https://firejail.wordpress.com/documentation-2/x11-guide/ This existed and happened long ere Wayland was even conceived.

jchw 6y ago
What Firejail supports is nested X servers, which are complicated and often buggy. Last I checked Firejail itself only recommended using X11 sandboxing when dealing with hostile situations. I consider having to use a nested X server, even one capable of forwarding, a huge compromise based on my experience with it. Anyway, that did not exist before Wayland was even conceived. First of all, hardware acceleration in Xpra has been a relatively rocky story for a long time. Second of all, Firejail didn’t support using it until 2016. If you want to keep buying borderline Linux-incompatible video cards and running an unmaintained display server, by all means try to jam a security model onto an inherently insecure client-server system to help justify it. As cold as it may be, the world will happily leave you behind. And if you don’t believe me, just keep waiting. Lots of people thought Macromedia Flash would stick around forever, too.
- Blikkentrekker 6y ago
  > What Firejail supports is nested X servers, As in, a form of sandboxing. > which are complicated They are no more complicated than every other proxied daemon, as my original post very much explained. > and often buggy. Then I'm sure you can provide me with such a bug. > Last I checked Firejail itself only recommended using X11 sandboxing when dealing with hostile situations. Then I'm sure you can cite this recommendation. > I consider having to use a nested X server, even one capable of forwarding, a huge compromise based on my experience with it. I'm sure that you can come with an actual concrete example of a problem, because when I used it it simply appears as if the application normally ran in it's Window, and I would not be able to tell the difference had I not known. > Anyway, that did not exist before Wayland was even conceived. First of all, hardware acceleration in Xpra has been a relatively rocky story for a long time. Second of all, Firejail didn’t support using it until 2016. The first Firejail beta releases itself was in 2014, long after Wayland was first conceived. The first Xpra release was in 2008, however. > If you want to keep buying borderline Linux-incompatible video cards and running an unmaintained display server, by all means try to jam a security model onto an inherently insecure client-server system to help justify it. As cold as it may be, the world will happily leave you behind. And if you don’t believe me, just keep waiting. Lots of people thought Macromedia Flash would stick around forever, too. I'm sure you'll tell the next man that proved you wrong that you “never saw proof” as well, and he will provide proof too, which you will just as dismiss with vague arguments of “It's buggy and a huge compromise, but I won't provide any specifics on which bugs, and which compromises.” People that actually think that Wayland is the “future” that will replace X11 with this constant “features that many users need are insecure and they really don't need them.” are a laughter. As of this moment most user interfaces haven't even tried an attempt to make a Wayland port and aren't interested; the only noteable ports are KDE, GNOME, Sway, and Enlightenment, two of which had to add back many of the cut features to make their system work, but had to do so in incompatible, nonstandardized ways. It must have been around 2013 when I first heard talk about how Wayland was ready and would leave X11 behind, and adoption hasn't increased much since then.

jchw 6y ago

What Firejail supports is nested X servers, which are complicated and often buggy. Last I checked Firejail itself only recommended using X11 sandboxing when dealing with hostile situations. I consider having to use a nested X server, even one capable of forwarding, a huge compromise based on my experience with it. Anyway, that did not exist before Wayland was even conceived. First of all, hardware acceleration in Xpra has been a relatively rocky story for a long time. Second of all, Firejail didn’t support using it until 2016. If you want to keep buying borderline Linux-incompatible video cards and running an unmaintained display server, by all means try to jam a security model onto an inherently insecure client-server system to help justify it. As cold as it may be, the world will happily leave you behind. And if you don’t believe me, just keep waiting. Lots of people thought Macromedia Flash would stick around forever, too.

Blikkentrekker 6y ago
> What Firejail supports is nested X servers, As in, a form of sandboxing. > which are complicated They are no more complicated than every other proxied daemon, as my original post very much explained. > and often buggy. Then I'm sure you can provide me with such a bug. > Last I checked Firejail itself only recommended using X11 sandboxing when dealing with hostile situations. Then I'm sure you can cite this recommendation. > I consider having to use a nested X server, even one capable of forwarding, a huge compromise based on my experience with it. I'm sure that you can come with an actual concrete example of a problem, because when I used it it simply appears as if the application normally ran in it's Window, and I would not be able to tell the difference had I not known. > Anyway, that did not exist before Wayland was even conceived. First of all, hardware acceleration in Xpra has been a relatively rocky story for a long time. Second of all, Firejail didn’t support using it until 2016. The first Firejail beta releases itself was in 2014, long after Wayland was first conceived. The first Xpra release was in 2008, however. > If you want to keep buying borderline Linux-incompatible video cards and running an unmaintained display server, by all means try to jam a security model onto an inherently insecure client-server system to help justify it. As cold as it may be, the world will happily leave you behind. And if you don’t believe me, just keep waiting. Lots of people thought Macromedia Flash would stick around forever, too. I'm sure you'll tell the next man that proved you wrong that you “never saw proof” as well, and he will provide proof too, which you will just as dismiss with vague arguments of “It's buggy and a huge compromise, but I won't provide any specifics on which bugs, and which compromises.” People that actually think that Wayland is the “future” that will replace X11 with this constant “features that many users need are insecure and they really don't need them.” are a laughter. As of this moment most user interfaces haven't even tried an attempt to make a Wayland port and aren't interested; the only noteable ports are KDE, GNOME, Sway, and Enlightenment, two of which had to add back many of the cut features to make their system work, but had to do so in incompatible, nonstandardized ways. It must have been around 2013 when I first heard talk about how Wayland was ready and would leave X11 behind, and adoption hasn't increased much since then.