> If it was a threat vector, it clearly wasn't a very big issue. By the same token, patching the apps to use the new API is not a very big issue either. Or is

> If it was a threat vector, it clearly wasn't a very big issue. By the same token, patching the apps to use the new API is not a very big issue either. Or is it? Why? If you have the sources, neither is a problem. If you do not have sources, both are problem. A matter of fact is, that users are going to use apps that they do not have sources for, and can neither audit, nor update the apps. > If they wanted to not break existing apps, simply intercept attempts to share screens or inputs, and pop up a dialog box asking the user for consent? Because there was no API before; there were hacks. Some of them worked only due to circumstances of how the given functionality was implemented, but spec-wise, it wasn't guaranteed at all. Now there are APIs. Just like there is a virtual memory or filesystem permissions. These weren't given years ago either. They also "broke" apps. > major linux distributions were already pushing it. RHEL8 is Wayland-default on non-Nvidia GPUs. Old relase of a freaking RHEL, which itself moves as molases. > I'd be much more forgiving if the wayland devs said 'hey guys, we're working on a new display server but it's very experimental and no one should use it unless they want to help us work out the kinks'. You missed that phase by some 10 years or so. > Instead, it was 'this is the future, x11 is abandonware' That's how it is. If linux wants to stay relevant and not became another Amiga, that's how it is going to be.