3 ms·

`xterm` lacks Wayland support-- a more secure alternative to X11. For a fast terminal with Wayland support, check out `alacritty` or foot: https://codeberg.or

`xterm` lacks Wayland support-- a more secure alternative to X11. For a fast terminal with Wayland support, check out `alacritty` or foot: https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot https://codeberg.org/dnkl/foot `foot` (foo terminal) benchmarks faster than alacritty and offers a client/server mode for even faster startup for new terminal windows.

andrelaszlo 6y ago
What about xclock?
- DonHopkins 6y ago
  Why use xclock when you can use Sun's "clocktool"? https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398ebd47 https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d39... X has had its share of $5,000 toilet seats — like Sun’s Open Look clock tool, which gobbles up 1.4 megabytes of real memory! If you sacrificed all the RAM from 22 Commodore 64s to clock tool, it still wouldn’t have enough to tell you the time. Even the vanilla X11R4 “xclock” utility consumed 656K to run. And X’s memory usage is increasing.
  - asveikau 6y ago
    This is really dated criticism. Nobody in 2021 is talking about Sun Open Look. And even that, whatever its faults at the time, was probably less resource intensive than what most HN readers would use to build a UI today. Try running electron on an Open Look era machine.
fulafel 6y ago
A tangent but where could I find a good evaluation of Wayland stack (including Weston etc) security? I know the design is often brought up but most vulnerabilities are implementation errors and bugs, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of security (advisories, etc) on the Wayland web site nor does a web search bring up anything that woudl indicate there's any active security focus. What I'd expect to find is some description of the security guarantees they provide, and some active work (such as fuzzing with hostile clients), and tracking of found & fixed vulnerabilities.
- MayeulC 6y ago
  Well, you can read the Wayland book, for instance: https://wayland-book.com/ https://wayland-book.com/ Of course, security is subject to implementation details. But as far as I know, the protocol is sound, and I can't recall vulnerabilities. How each implementation handles theirs is up to them. At least, we have multiple implementations of the protocol. With X, not so much.
  - fulafel 6y ago
    I didn't find answers to my questions about implementation level security on the wayland-book.com site unfortunately. Having multiple young codebases implementing the spec doesn't really provide security assurance at this point, though it can have other benefits.
MayeulC 6y ago
Thanks for foot, I'll check it out. I've been using kitty for now, and I've been pretty happy with it. https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/ https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/ It even comes with a fancy (but rather simple) extension for displaying bitmaps (more efficient than sixel), that I quite like together with ranger.

andrelaszlo 6y ago

What about xclock?

DonHopkins 6y ago
Why use xclock when you can use Sun's "clocktool"? https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d398ebd47 https://medium.com/@donhopkins/the-x-windows-disaster-128d39... X has had its share of $5,000 toilet seats — like Sun’s Open Look clock tool, which gobbles up 1.4 megabytes of real memory! If you sacrificed all the RAM from 22 Commodore 64s to clock tool, it still wouldn’t have enough to tell you the time. Even the vanilla X11R4 “xclock” utility consumed 656K to run. And X’s memory usage is increasing.
- asveikau 6y ago
  This is really dated criticism. Nobody in 2021 is talking about Sun Open Look. And even that, whatever its faults at the time, was probably less resource intensive than what most HN readers would use to build a UI today. Try running electron on an Open Look era machine.

fulafel 6y ago

A tangent but where could I find a good evaluation of Wayland stack (including Weston etc) security? I know the design is often brought up but most vulnerabilities are implementation errors and bugs, and there doesn't seem to be any mention of security (advisories, etc) on the Wayland web site nor does a web search bring up anything that woudl indicate there's any active security focus. What I'd expect to find is some description of the security guarantees they provide, and some active work (such as fuzzing with hostile clients), and tracking of found & fixed vulnerabilities.

MayeulC 6y ago
Well, you can read the Wayland book, for instance: https://wayland-book.com/ https://wayland-book.com/ Of course, security is subject to implementation details. But as far as I know, the protocol is sound, and I can't recall vulnerabilities. How each implementation handles theirs is up to them. At least, we have multiple implementations of the protocol. With X, not so much.
- fulafel 6y ago
  I didn't find answers to my questions about implementation level security on the wayland-book.com site unfortunately. Having multiple young codebases implementing the spec doesn't really provide security assurance at this point, though it can have other benefits.

MayeulC 6y ago

Thanks for foot, I'll check it out. I've been using kitty for now, and I've been pretty happy with it. https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/ https://sw.kovidgoyal.net/kitty/ It even comes with a fancy (but rather simple) extension for displaying bitmaps (more efficient than sixel), that I quite like together with ranger.