6 ms·

Yeah, Wayland is mostly a regression for my use cases: client-side decorations, breaking screen recording/sharing etc. I know there are theoretical issues with

Yeah, Wayland is mostly a regression for my use cases: client-side decorations, breaking screen recording/sharing etc. I know there are theoretical issues with the X security mode, but this replacement is a classic case of “security” producing something that’s basically useless for what people use the software for. Also, because X works over a socket, it’s language-agnostic in a way that a library just can’t be: libraries like CLX allow Common Lisp graphical applications with no dependency on a C library.

eitland 6y ago
> I know there are theoretical issues with the X security mode, but this replacement is a classic case of “security” producing something that’s basically useless for what people use the software for. I keep reminding people that one of the most known models for security is "confidentiality, integrity and availability". If it isn't available your security is still somehow broken however well one scores on confidentiality.
- canofbars 6y ago
  Wayland security is not broken. Its just a single piece in a much longer term goal that spans many components. Linux was not designed for the current era where users run untrusted and borderline malicious programs regularly. While wayland may secure the desktop, there are 20 other places where programs can scoop up your data. It looks useless now but without every part being fixed individually it will be impossible to create a secure linux desktop that runs proprietary applications.
  - smichel17 6y ago
    Tbh I'd much rather fight this on the front of "let's not need to run untrusted and borderline malicious programs regularly" than breaking the free world in order to make it possible.
    - canofbars 6y ago
      That fight was long long lost. We will never ever make things like video games open source. But we can sandbox them. Even open source tools could do with being sandboxed. I don't see why this is an issue. The user still has full power to do anything and its is only programs which are restricted. Under the new model, instead of a tool just grabbing your screen, it must now make a request to the OS which will show a popup asking if you want to allow access and if you accept the program can continue as it would have before.
      - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
        The issue I have with wayland is that it just continues to fragment the Linux desktop ecosystem, and it moved things to the toolkit that just don’t make sense there: I don’t want my window decorations to depend on whether the app is built with Qt or Gtk. I don’t want projects like McClim ( https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/ https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/ ) to depend on C code to communicate with the windowing system, etc.
        cycloptic 6y ago
        So for window decorations, it's up to the app developer if they want to implement special behavior for client side decorations or not. If they do, there's nothing your toolkit or window manager can really do about it, you have to show the client's window decorations or you will lose functionality. Wayland has little to do with that. About depending on C code, Wayland is pretty much the same as X11 there. If you don't want to use libwayland, you can write your own implementation of the wire protocol.
        fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
        This isn't true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783044
        cycloptic 6y ago
jancsika 6y ago
> breaking screen recording/sharing etc That's a scary one IMO. I mean, if you are a dev who has devoted an enormous amount of your efforts into making a replacement for the stuff that displays all the stuff from all the other GUIs, seems like the identity function would be recording the shit you're displaying. The fact that OBS doesn't yet work under Wayland makes me wonder if sufficient (or any) dogfooding is going on. It'd be like if in the 90s you still couldn't easily compile code from inside Emacs. It's a smell.
- cycloptic 6y ago
  If you're noticing something that seems strange like that I would say do a thorough check to make sure you don't have some misinformation, there's a lot of bunk that goes around on social media. OBS is working but is not fully tested yet: https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/2484/ https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/2484/ (Disclaimer: I did some of the work on this port)
  - jancsika 6y ago
    What's the relevance of the open bug report to what I wrote? For the record: * I'm running Debian bullseye * I'm running Gnome version 3.38.2 * I'm running OBS installed from apt: version 26.0.2+dfsg1-1+b1 (64 bit) Given a poster on this thread boldly claims that "Wayland is already done and ready," I'd say my setup is more than recent enough to test whether that claim is indeed usable in practice. Lo and behold, when I run OBS I get a blank screen staring back at me. If I log back in with Gnome running under X11, OBS works just fine. It's wonderful that the issue is being addressed, and I thank you for your work on it. But my point is that Wayland+OBS working together is a litmus test. The fact that the two are just beginning to play well is a big red light to me switching away from X11 any time soon. Anyway, that "done and ready" quote is really the source of my frustration. If I have to set an arbitrary timeout after a "loaded" event to get it to work properly, "loaded" is a probably misnomer.
    - cycloptic 6y ago
      You need to use that PR (and the right capture plugins) if you want native Wayland support, it's not merged yet. If you'd like to help move things along, please help test from git. I can give you more info on how to do this if you'd like. Even if this is merged it may be a while before it lands in debian testing.
shrubble 6y ago
Solaris 10 with Trusted Extensions which I believe includes extensive security for X11, shipped in May 2009.
kaba0 6y ago
There is theoretical issues with the X way of handling graphics hardware. Also, wayland also uses sockets..

eitland 6y ago

> I know there are theoretical issues with the X security mode, but this replacement is a classic case of “security” producing something that’s basically useless for what people use the software for. I keep reminding people that one of the most known models for security is "confidentiality, integrity and availability". If it isn't available your security is still somehow broken however well one scores on confidentiality.

canofbars 6y ago
Wayland security is not broken. Its just a single piece in a much longer term goal that spans many components. Linux was not designed for the current era where users run untrusted and borderline malicious programs regularly. While wayland may secure the desktop, there are 20 other places where programs can scoop up your data. It looks useless now but without every part being fixed individually it will be impossible to create a secure linux desktop that runs proprietary applications.
- smichel17 6y ago
  Tbh I'd much rather fight this on the front of "let's not need to run untrusted and borderline malicious programs regularly" than breaking the free world in order to make it possible.
  - canofbars 6y ago
    That fight was long long lost. We will never ever make things like video games open source. But we can sandbox them. Even open source tools could do with being sandboxed. I don't see why this is an issue. The user still has full power to do anything and its is only programs which are restricted. Under the new model, instead of a tool just grabbing your screen, it must now make a request to the OS which will show a popup asking if you want to allow access and if you accept the program can continue as it would have before.
    - fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
      The issue I have with wayland is that it just continues to fragment the Linux desktop ecosystem, and it moved things to the toolkit that just don’t make sense there: I don’t want my window decorations to depend on whether the app is built with Qt or Gtk. I don’t want projects like McClim ( https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/ https://common-lisp.net/project/mcclim/ ) to depend on C code to communicate with the windowing system, etc.
      - cycloptic 6y ago
        So for window decorations, it's up to the app developer if they want to implement special behavior for client side decorations or not. If they do, there's nothing your toolkit or window manager can really do about it, you have to show the client's window decorations or you will lose functionality. Wayland has little to do with that. About depending on C code, Wayland is pretty much the same as X11 there. If you don't want to use libwayland, you can write your own implementation of the wire protocol.
        fiddlerwoaroof 6y ago
        This isn't true: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783044 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=19783044
        cycloptic 6y ago

jancsika 6y ago

> breaking screen recording/sharing etc That's a scary one IMO. I mean, if you are a dev who has devoted an enormous amount of your efforts into making a replacement for the stuff that displays all the stuff from all the other GUIs, seems like the identity function would be recording the shit you're displaying. The fact that OBS doesn't yet work under Wayland makes me wonder if sufficient (or any) dogfooding is going on. It'd be like if in the 90s you still couldn't easily compile code from inside Emacs. It's a smell.

cycloptic 6y ago
If you're noticing something that seems strange like that I would say do a thorough check to make sure you don't have some misinformation, there's a lot of bunk that goes around on social media. OBS is working but is not fully tested yet: https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/2484/ https://github.com/obsproject/obs-studio/pull/2484/ (Disclaimer: I did some of the work on this port)
- jancsika 6y ago
  What's the relevance of the open bug report to what I wrote? For the record: * I'm running Debian bullseye * I'm running Gnome version 3.38.2 * I'm running OBS installed from apt: version 26.0.2+dfsg1-1+b1 (64 bit) Given a poster on this thread boldly claims that "Wayland is already done and ready," I'd say my setup is more than recent enough to test whether that claim is indeed usable in practice. Lo and behold, when I run OBS I get a blank screen staring back at me. If I log back in with Gnome running under X11, OBS works just fine. It's wonderful that the issue is being addressed, and I thank you for your work on it. But my point is that Wayland+OBS working together is a litmus test. The fact that the two are just beginning to play well is a big red light to me switching away from X11 any time soon. Anyway, that "done and ready" quote is really the source of my frustration. If I have to set an arbitrary timeout after a "loaded" event to get it to work properly, "loaded" is a probably misnomer.
  - cycloptic 6y ago
    You need to use that PR (and the right capture plugins) if you want native Wayland support, it's not merged yet. If you'd like to help move things along, please help test from git. I can give you more info on how to do this if you'd like. Even if this is merged it may be a while before it lands in debian testing.

shrubble 6y ago

Solaris 10 with Trusted Extensions which I believe includes extensive security for X11, shipped in May 2009.

kaba0 6y ago

There is theoretical issues with the X way of handling graphics hardware. Also, wayland also uses sockets..