4 ms·

I think this is interesting take. But I consider GNU Linux on desktop to be currently "weeded out by social mechanisms". Conversely the locked & secured Linux

• washadjeffmad 3y ago
  In those, the social mechanism is removed, replacing users as the object with commerce. There is no user consortium, no committees on behalf of users, no form of governance other than a single vendor for either platform. Wayland was unilateral. It wasn't a choice by users, but by companies.
  • Sankozi 3y ago
    Free Linux distributions are controlled by companies or by unpaid developers (or both), and they have decided that Wayland is a way forward, even when the whole UI platform is not yet ready. The only thing user can do in this environment is to choose different distro or create new one and see what it means to support X. If you are not paying for it, you become eternal alpha/beta tester.
  • pantalaimon 3y ago
    Retroactively adding security to a system where security was not a design goal is hard, so I can understand why Wayland chose to also cover those use cases. In the Desktop Linux ecosystem the added 'security' by Wayland is indeed marginal when every app can access the whole filesystem.
    • cesarb 3y ago
      > In the Desktop Linux ecosystem the added 'security' by Wayland is indeed marginal when every app can access the whole filesystem. That's no longer the case with flatpak apps, which are gradually becoming more popular; some of them might still have access to the whole filesystem, but most of them are limited to sharing nothing or at most a couple of specific directories.