91–100 of 184 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Constantly. Phishing, tech support scams, supply chain attacks on e.g. NPM, problems have been rampant since we connected desktops to the internet.
I mean specifically things that using using Wayland will improve.
I agree that the lack of standardization around the "insecure" things is a bad idea. Insecure operations don't have to be available by default, or even universally supported, but a central registry of interfaces for e.g. retrieving all windows on a desktop would certainly help preventing fragmentation. At the same time, most of this post really is just a rant essentially saying that a low-level library is so flexible…
Whenever people complain about Wayland being hard to program in, I think about how Xlib was largely replaced by XCB, and OpenGL is increasingly marginalized in comparison to Vulkan. Not to draw any specific analogy, but sometimes a fussy low-level interface is just important to have.
Vulkan's "API design deficits" (to put it mildly) have been recognized by Khronos though, and turning that mess around and making the API a "joy to use" is one of Khronos' main priorities at the moment (kudos to them for doing that).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Huh. The "security" preventing me from doing things I want to do is a major reason I dislike Wayland :/. (e.g. automation & scripting / input events, clipboard, ...) It also has noticeable mouse lag for me, I really hope this isn't due to avoiding tearing.
With great power comes great responsibility :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To create a simple window, no it isn't. To create a rather complex application, then yes it is, compared with using a higher-level framework.
This article is complaining about the complexity of creating a simple window in Wayland, which is much easier in Win32. Wayland doesn't make creating "a rather complex application" any easier either. In both cases you would use a framework. Even more so in Wayland, which doesn't provide widgets or standard dialogs at all, while Win32 does.
Some compositor's insistence on CSD can make it a bit more complex since you get that in Win32 for free, but on the sane ones you just add xdg-decoration and you're done.
Also, this is all apples-to-oranges anyway, as Win32 is a toolkit, while wayland-client is just a protocol (de)serializer.
As a user, I like wayland. X11 was a security disaster. Wayland is much better about tearing. What scares me though are all the responsibilities passed to compositors, because what ends up happening is that each compositor may reimplement what should be common functionality in annoying ways. This is especially true for input things, like key remapping. This ultimately fragments linux desktop experiences even harder t…
A security disaster? Howso?
Linux always has been a system were the existence of malware was ignored, specially Desktop, contrary to other OSes (tooling included). But since a couple of years ago can be observed (I observe) slooow movements trying to correct this colossal mistake.
If this is the best way to do it or not, I do not enter. I particularly just welcome most of the advancements about this matter in Linux due such absence of worrying, keeping my fingers crossed that the needed tooling arrives on time (ten years behind Windows, I think).
The constant loud bile spewing over Wayland and systemd just won't stop here, will it? It's getting a bit boring, especially since none really does more than complain.
You should know that the constant criticism is basically what stabilized systemd - the core - and stopped systemd - the project - from stretching its arms over every component in the ecosystem, which obviously could create a single-point-of-failure. The upstream has made and still makes stupid assumptions that are totally denied by distros. You’re basically missing a lot of details here.
I agree that the lack of standardization around the "insecure" things is a bad idea. Insecure operations don't have to be available by default, or even universally supported, but a central registry of interfaces for e.g. retrieving all windows on a desktop would certainly help preventing fragmentation. At the same time, most of this post really is just a rant essentially saying that a low-level library is so flexible…
Whenever people complain about Wayland being hard to program in, I think about how Xlib was largely replaced by XCB, and OpenGL is increasingly marginalized in comparison to Vulkan. Not to draw any specific analogy, but sometimes a fussy low-level interface is just important to have.
The constant loud bile spewing over Wayland and systemd just won't stop here, will it? It's getting a bit boring, especially since none really does more than complain.
Tbh, 1300 lines of extremely cursed code to open a frigging window and GL context deserves that bile. Such a fundamental problem is also nothing that can be fixed through contributions except discarding the whole clusterfuck and starting over from scratch.
Especially coming from people who don't put in the work to build something else.
It's really bizarre how the opensource community degraded into this space of constant aggresive, insulting screeching over every single project thats actually moving something in the Linux world. Coming from people who don't put any code behind it or do anything but attack any change since 1990s.
To hell with that, Linux developers deserve better than this constant barrage of hate.
I agree that the lack of standardization around the "insecure" things is a bad idea. Insecure operations don't have to be available by default, or even universally supported, but a central registry of interfaces for e.g. retrieving all windows on a desktop would certainly help preventing fragmentation. At the same time, most of this post really is just a rant essentially saying that a low-level library is so flexible…
There is really no excuse for a low-level API to be hard to use. It's just poor API design, plain and simple. At the very least there should be a standardized (and centralized) client library on top of Wayland but below widget frameworks like GTK or Qt which implements the missing "desktop window system features": opening, moving, sizing windows (with decorations please), mouse and keyboard input events, clipboard, d…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The point of wayland, though, is that back then 13-year-old you would get an application that "works" but to support myriad things (like HiDPI) you'd have to DIY it. Whereas now, sure a 13 year old perhaps won't write directly to wayland's APIs, but you'll use a library and have a much more globally usable result. And honestly probably have a better time - less effort for the same result, and with a more maintainable…
HiDPI has always been perfectly supported by X11. The only problem that has existed is that originally there was a single DPI value, not a different DPI value for each monitor. This has never created any problem for the people using multiple monitors with the same resolution, but only for the people who have used multiple monitors having different resolutions and who might have not liked the changes in windows size w…
These kind of posts just show how disconnected from reality some of y'all are from what most Linux desktop users nowadays actually need from the desktop platform.