Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Wayland vs. X – Overview

wayland.freedesktop.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 186 posts

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#161

Post by vlovich123 »

account42 wrote: post #109
vlovich123 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Those aren't inherently insecurities, but the way X implemented them was quite insecure. Wayland is now having to do the heavy lifting of defining a secure protocol to implement it and migrating the entire Linux GUI ecosystem to using the new mechanisms. Also, I can take screenshots just fine on Wayland via KWin. I can't pick arbitrary 3p apps just yet but KWin's screenshotter is fine. Not sure about screen recording…

"secure" really has become a buzzword. > Those aren't inherently insecurities, but the way X implemented them was quite insecure. In what way does X.org add any security holes to the average Linux desktop where you have programs (from a trusted package repository) which can access everything your user account can?

You get that not every program invoked on a desktop necessarily comes by that way right? But that’s not actually the core problem. I trust you can do your own research as to what the security issues are, but as a starter here’s https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/clipboard-security.html

These are very old issues and are some of the major reasons Wayland was started in the first place. May want to read up on what the problems identified by the project were when it started considering all X maintainers migrated their time and energy to Wayland.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#162

Post by DonHopkins »

marrs wrote: post #159
DonHopkins wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> they're expecting all software to be rewritten. ALL software was ALREADY rewritten for the web, so just use a web browser running directly on the hardware instead of bothering with X11 or Wayland or some hypothetical replacement like X12. That's just an extra useless layer that nobody needs. A web browser is totally extensible and scriptable in JavaScript and WASM. Standards based. Excellent networking support. Str…

I write software for web browsers for a living and I shudder at the thought of having all of my apps trapped in some bloaty, slow sandbox that's different enough from all the other bloaty and slow sandboxes to not actually support all the software it needs to run. If I have to live on your world, I'll probably just chuck it all in and work with my hands for a living instead.

So you'd rather have TWO different bloaty slow sandboxes layered on top of each other, instead of one bloaty slow sandbox. Right.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#163

Post by pjmlp »

marrs wrote: post #158
pjmlp wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Better than what most GNU/Linux folks use, many of whom apparently would be quite happy using twm.

I doubt that. Most of the WMs available for Linux are way more capable than their standard counterparts. There's a rich diversity of UXs available on the platform. Hopefully their ideas won't die with them if they get left behind by Wayland.

That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app.

Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#164

Post by gpderetta »

acdha wrote: post #136
belval wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be seeing a confrontational message where I didn't mean one. Yes I'm sure you could find some old posts complaining about X that would illustrate the same phenomenon. My point is pretty much exactly that. Fast forward the next 5-10 years and we might all be on Wayland but they blew their first impression and that's delaying adoption.

It sounded like a but of a misdirected excuse: if someone is still complaining about Wayland now based on an initial experience half a decade ago, wouldn’t the first step be getting up to speed with the current state? When I read that I was reminded of how many Linux users had issues with things like mode lines back in the day, and that was a non-issue only a few years later.

The problem is 20 years ago you had to use XFree86 if you wanted graphical output in Linux, there was no other choice, so you had to put up with it no matter the craziness.

Now X.org works fine for the majority of users, so for them (/raises hand) it is very hard to see the value proposition of switching to Wayland, especially if prior attempts were less than successful.

The fact that X11 development has stalled might be a plus for those that just want a stable system, are used to the limitations and don't need new features.

We will migrate eventually, likely at next distro upgrade, but there is no hurry.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#165

Post by account42 »

yencabulator wrote: post #154
account42 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Compositing in the context of window management hase a more specific meaning: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Compositing_window_manager vs. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stacking_window_manager There are advantages and disadvantages to both approaches. Note that X.org is traditionally a stacking window manager but has had the compositing model bolted on for a long time now.

Compositing WM is not "versus" stacking WM. Practically all mainstream Wayland desktops are floating ("stacking") based UI paradigms, while using compositing to construct the final screen image. The wikipedia article you linked to shows examples of stacking window management on the compositing window manager page! Are you thinking of tiling WMs? The major tiling Wayland compositors support floating windows when you w…

No, from the Wiki article on stacking WMs (empahsis mine):

> A stacking window manager (also called floating window manager) is a window manager that draws and allows windows to overlap, without using a compositing algorithm. All window managers that allow the overlapping of windows but are not compositing window managers are considered stacking window managers, although it is possible that not all use exactly the same methods.

It's possible that you have another definition but for me (and it seems for Wikipedia) the distinction is that a stacking WM does not keep buffers for individual windows but instead has them draw directly into the desktop buffer (details vary, the programs themselves might not have access to the buffer but send pixmaps that get blitted there). This results in lower resource usage and fewer copies but requires programs to redraw newly exposed regions when you move a window which may result in visible artifacts when programs cannot render fast enough.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#166

Post by account42 »

vlovich123 wrote: post #161
account42 wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"secure" really has become a buzzword. > Those aren't inherently insecurities, but the way X implemented them was quite insecure. In what way does X.org add any security holes to the average Linux desktop where you have programs (from a trusted package repository) which can access everything your user account can?

You get that not every program invoked on a desktop necessarily comes by that way right? But that’s not actually the core problem. I trust you can do your own research as to what the security issues are, but as a starter here’s https://www.ctrl.blog/entry/clipboard-security.html These are very old issues and are some of the major reasons Wayland was started in the first place. May want to read up on what the problems…

I am well aware of what programs with access to my computer can do. That's why I use programs from sources I trust.

I have zero interest in a low trust computing model because that comes with a cost to usability and performance, especially for power users but not also for others.

I also get that most commercial software developers these days should be treated as adversaries because they will break any trust you place in them. The correct response to that should be to not use their software or to create and enforce laws to get them to behave. This is really no different to anti-social behavior outside cyberspace - we have laws and police to enforce them precisely so that we can walk the streets alone without fear and leave our homes unattended. The degree of that safety varies greatly around the world and I much prefer living in places where I don't have to have bars in front of my windows. The same applies to computers.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#167

Post by marrs »

DonHopkins wrote: post #162
marrs wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I write software for web browsers for a living and I shudder at the thought of having all of my apps trapped in some bloaty, slow sandbox that's different enough from all the other bloaty and slow sandboxes to not actually support all the software it needs to run. If I have to live on your world, I'll probably just chuck it all in and work with my hands for a living instead.

So you'd rather have TWO different bloaty slow sandboxes layered on top of each other, instead of one bloaty slow sandbox. Right.

I don't know what this means

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#168

Post by marrs »

pjmlp wrote: post #163
marrs wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I doubt that. Most of the WMs available for Linux are way more capable than their standard counterparts. There's a rich diversity of UXs available on the platform. Hopefully their ideas won't die with them if they get left behind by Wayland.

That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app. Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows.

> That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app.

How so? I run Electron apps all the time. They behave like any other app.

> Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows.

Most people don't want to run Linux. And I don't want to waste my free time experimenting with a critical desktop component.

BTW, remember those people who actually make Linux work for the rest of us? Many of them do want to do those things. It's how they got to be Linux contributors in the first place.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#169

Post by pjmlp »

marrs wrote: post #168
pjmlp wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app. Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows.

> That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app. How so? I run Electron apps all the time. They behave like any other app. > Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows. Most people don't want to run Linux. And I don't want to waste my free time experimenting with a critical desktop component. BTW, remember those people…

Indeed, because packing a browser with the application makes up for the missing pieces across all bazillion of desktop configurations, for everyone that isn't running either GNOME or KDE.

Oh do I remember, Red-Hat, Mandrake, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Google, Linaro,....

Slackware 2.0 was my first distribution.

Re: Wayland vs. X – Overview

#170

Post by marrs »

pjmlp wrote: post #169
marrs wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> That fragmentation is one of the reasons why in the end you get an Electron app. How so? I run Electron apps all the time. They behave like any other app. > Most people don't want to spend hours tweaking Enlightenment themes, or keyboard shortcuts for tiled windows. Most people don't want to run Linux. And I don't want to waste my free time experimenting with a critical desktop component. BTW, remember those people…

Indeed, because packing a browser with the application makes up for the missing pieces across all bazillion of desktop configurations, for everyone that isn't running either GNOME or KDE. Oh do I remember, Red-Hat, Mandrake, IBM, Intel, Oracle, Google, Linaro,.... Slackware 2.0 was my first distribution.

Maybe your knowledge is out of date? Afaict, most (if not all) of the differences between desktop environments have been fixed by XDG. I don't run Gnome or KDE and everything on my desktop works just fine.
Post reply on HN