4 ms·
This seems...oddly passive aggressive. I actually have no skin in the game. I simply posted out of curiosity. I do worry that as Linux becomes more popular due
by Rooster61 1y ago
This seems...oddly passive aggressive. I actually have no skin in the game. I simply posted out of curiosity. I do worry that as Linux becomes more popular due to Windows fuckery, there will be an increase in malware that preys on X11's security flaws, but I am perfectly happy using X11.
> That is a good definition of badly engineered.
One could argue that the hacks and whatnot that apps use to do what they do on X are based on poor engineering. Security certainly is an engineering criterion.
- deleted 1y ago[deleted]
- brudgers 1y agoWaylaid solves Redhat/IBM’s problems…security for desktop Linux in Enterprises where workers without the technical background to navigate the command line are forced to use Linux. [1] In ordinary Linux Fu, the command line is the secure alternative to X. [1] to be clear Wayland addresses the need to document compliance with best practices and other aspects of security theatre.
- toast0 1y agoLook, X11's lack of security is real, but I'd bet that most users don't lock down debugging between applications on the system, so anything you could get out of X11, you can also get out of attaching to other processes as a debugger. X11 allows you to have "network transparency" and run (authenticated) malware attached to your display on a different host and read your keypresses remotely; but Wayland's network scope is limited; waypipe exists, but nobody talks about it, does it work? can you do ssh -something to setup a tunnel and run things and have it just work (at least to the standard of tunneled X)? Taking care of networked malware by ignoring networking for a decade doesn't like not addressing the user needs and then you shouldn't be be surprised when adoption is slow.