5 ms·

All you are doing is setting people up for more permanent bash-dash disasters. Isn't there something more useful you could be doing with your time? Say making d

All you are doing is setting people up for more permanent bash-dash disasters. Isn't there something more useful you could be doing with your time? Say making drag&drop work in snaps (another unforced disaster)?

OsrsNeedsf2P 2y ago
The "security" in Wayland, Snaps and Flatpaks are starting to irk me. Macros aren't working, clipboard forgets my copy, drag n' drop is flimsy - AppImages like Cursor can't even open on vanilla Ubuntu anymore. These "features" no one asked for should be opt-in.
- Etheryte 2y ago
  In a way they are opt-in, as in you opt in by using Ubuntu and opt out by using something else.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
- porridgeraisin 2y ago
  Yep, exactly. The whole thing is just theater. I hate it. I know I can just use X11 (and I do), but the already small appetite for developing for linux will be stretched even more thin in the coming years and we will probably only have Wayland apps. The bright side however, is that Wayland could make itself so utterly garbage that people just ignore making apps for it (I'm not counting apps targeting just kde/gnome, which anyway diverge far enough from wayland protocols to warrant being mentioned separately). So we would have X11/KDE/Gnome support for linux apps. That's probably the best case scenario.
- surajrmal 2y ago
  Do you think app permissions in Android and iOS apps are not helpful? There isn't really a reason that the permission models make sense on mobile but not desktop. Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy. The fact the security features gets in your way is more of a product finesse problem which generally plagues open source projects in general. The technology is not conceptually flawed.
  - jeroenhd 2y ago
    > Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy Why? If 30 years of Windows being the most internet connected OS has proven anything, it's that 99% of desktop executable should be deleted before they make it through the disk write cache. Mobile platforms show that mandatory sandboxes are a massive bonus to preventing malware. Desktop operating systems refuse to go that route because of the risk of breaking existing tools, which is why nobody bothers to actually use sandboxing APIs, which is why many third party sandboxing attempts keep breaking. There's no reason why desktops can't exchange files through virtual file systems or dedicated sharing APIs like on mobile. My calculator doesn't need camera access and my music player can do without biometrics. The desktop is stuck in the 1990's permission model (or 1970s, for Unix-likes) because that's what people have gotten used to. My experience with the Steam Deck is that Flatpak sandboxing on a read-only system image works absolutely fine. Things would work better if desktop applications would bother standardising and following existing standards, but the technology works. Sure, it's not good enough if you're a Linux kernel developer, but the 0.01% of users who are affected by those limitations shouldn't limit everyone else. Some desktop users may think themselves to be too smart to get hacked, especially on Linux, but their desktops are not that different from smartphones.
    - surajrmal 2y ago
      I had a typo, it should have been aren't. I agree with you.
knowitnone 2y ago
I agree, they should rewrite the kernel in Rust
- beanjuiceII 2y ago
  yea thats called a completely different project
- worik 2y ago
  > they should rewrite the kernel in Rust I adore Rust Please don't! Can we get on with innovating on the backs of what went before, not reinvent it...

OsrsNeedsf2P 2y ago

The "security" in Wayland, Snaps and Flatpaks are starting to irk me. Macros aren't working, clipboard forgets my copy, drag n' drop is flimsy - AppImages like Cursor can't even open on vanilla Ubuntu anymore. These "features" no one asked for should be opt-in.

Etheryte 2y ago
In a way they are opt-in, as in you opt in by using Ubuntu and opt out by using something else.
- deleted 2y ago
  [deleted]
porridgeraisin 2y ago
Yep, exactly. The whole thing is just theater. I hate it. I know I can just use X11 (and I do), but the already small appetite for developing for linux will be stretched even more thin in the coming years and we will probably only have Wayland apps. The bright side however, is that Wayland could make itself so utterly garbage that people just ignore making apps for it (I'm not counting apps targeting just kde/gnome, which anyway diverge far enough from wayland protocols to warrant being mentioned separately). So we would have X11/KDE/Gnome support for linux apps. That's probably the best case scenario.
surajrmal 2y ago
Do you think app permissions in Android and iOS apps are not helpful? There isn't really a reason that the permission models make sense on mobile but not desktop. Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy. The fact the security features gets in your way is more of a product finesse problem which generally plagues open source projects in general. The technology is not conceptually flawed.
- jeroenhd 2y ago
  > Desktop applications are inherently more trustworthy Why? If 30 years of Windows being the most internet connected OS has proven anything, it's that 99% of desktop executable should be deleted before they make it through the disk write cache. Mobile platforms show that mandatory sandboxes are a massive bonus to preventing malware. Desktop operating systems refuse to go that route because of the risk of breaking existing tools, which is why nobody bothers to actually use sandboxing APIs, which is why many third party sandboxing attempts keep breaking. There's no reason why desktops can't exchange files through virtual file systems or dedicated sharing APIs like on mobile. My calculator doesn't need camera access and my music player can do without biometrics. The desktop is stuck in the 1990's permission model (or 1970s, for Unix-likes) because that's what people have gotten used to. My experience with the Steam Deck is that Flatpak sandboxing on a read-only system image works absolutely fine. Things would work better if desktop applications would bother standardising and following existing standards, but the technology works. Sure, it's not good enough if you're a Linux kernel developer, but the 0.01% of users who are affected by those limitations shouldn't limit everyone else. Some desktop users may think themselves to be too smart to get hacked, especially on Linux, but their desktops are not that different from smartphones.
  - surajrmal 2y ago
    I had a typo, it should have been aren't. I agree with you.

knowitnone 2y ago

I agree, they should rewrite the kernel in Rust

beanjuiceII 2y ago
yea thats called a completely different project
worik 2y ago
> they should rewrite the kernel in Rust I adore Rust Please don't! Can we get on with innovating on the backs of what went before, not reinvent it...