3 ms·

> It is a good thing that they are broken, because what they do is snooping on windows that do not belong to them. Don't want to derail this discussion anymore

> It is a good thing that they are broken, because what they do is snooping on windows that do not belong to them. Don't want to derail this discussion anymore, but this argument is nuts. If you are so concerned that programs that you run can spy on other programs that you run, how do you deal that the fact that all of these running programs have full read-write access to all files on your $HOME? EDIT: I agree that being able to run selected programs inside a sandbox would be a good thing (maybe even all programs). But attacking the problem of visible display before that of hidden files seems ridiculous. Moreso if it cripples copy paste, screen capture, and similar basic stuff (which to me are just like unix pipes: ways to make programs work together!)

vetinari 6y ago
> t all of these running programs have full read-write access to all files on your $HOME? They don't necesarilly do; if you are running flatpak, chances are that they don't. For example, there is a flatpak for MS Teams. For application like this, you want it to be able to share your screen, but it doesn't have any access to your $HOME (in this specific case, only to ~/Downloads). More importantly, if you want to tight up your desktop, why do you criticize something that starts attacking it from one angle, that it is not 100% solution? It is not; others are working on the other angles, and then together it will be the 100% solution. In this case, Wayland is only one piece of puzzle, not the entire puzzle.