[dead]
Questionable posts? Care to explain? So not having the same opinion that you have or being in favor of Wayland is questionable now?
I understand where you're coming from, but there is no turning back at this point. Sure, you could still run dwm on Xorg or Xlibre and pretend Wayland doesn't exist, but the reality is that the vast majority of Linux…
Ah, got it! Thanks for clarifying. That makes total sense in the context of Qubes.
I'm aware, I've been there since Xgl when Kristian Høgsberg worked on AIGLX. Wayland makes the current X model the default, Wayland is essentially X.
You're aware of the VM escape issues over the past decade? There's no perfect, and high overhead from running many guests can also create security risks. Wayland with all of its problems remains a logical step forward…
Again, not true: if you want to take a screenshot in a generic way, you have to go through the XDG portal API, which is generic across all the compositors that support them, i.e. most of them.
Wayland didn't start as a corporate project, and even if it had, you might be shocked to learn that the majority of contributions to projects like the Linux kernel and Mesa actually come from corporations, not…
So many people spreading FUD about Wayland who don't have a clue.
Qubes OS achieves isolation by separating apps in VMs, Wayland does this at the display protocol level. If Qubes OS is serious about security, they should consider Wayland with containerization, it would result in a…
> Wayland is the complete opposite of modular Not true. Wayland simply cuts out the middleman. Making the compositor the display server is one of the best things Wayland did. This brings so many advantages, such as true…
Wayland security is a side effect of how the core protocol works. In X, you have one giant buffer, while in Wayland, each application renders to its own buffer and pushes that buffer to the compositor when ready.
[dead]
Questionable posts? Care to explain? So not having the same opinion that you have or being in favor of Wayland is questionable now?
I understand where you're coming from, but there is no turning back at this point. Sure, you could still run dwm on Xorg or Xlibre and pretend Wayland doesn't exist, but the reality is that the vast majority of Linux…
Ah, got it! Thanks for clarifying. That makes total sense in the context of Qubes.
I'm aware, I've been there since Xgl when Kristian Høgsberg worked on AIGLX. Wayland makes the current X model the default, Wayland is essentially X.
You're aware of the VM escape issues over the past decade? There's no perfect, and high overhead from running many guests can also create security risks. Wayland with all of its problems remains a logical step forward…
Again, not true: if you want to take a screenshot in a generic way, you have to go through the XDG portal API, which is generic across all the compositors that support them, i.e. most of them.
Wayland didn't start as a corporate project, and even if it had, you might be shocked to learn that the majority of contributions to projects like the Linux kernel and Mesa actually come from corporations, not…
So many people spreading FUD about Wayland who don't have a clue.
Qubes OS achieves isolation by separating apps in VMs, Wayland does this at the display protocol level. If Qubes OS is serious about security, they should consider Wayland with containerization, it would result in a…
> Wayland is the complete opposite of modular Not true. Wayland simply cuts out the middleman. Making the compositor the display server is one of the best things Wayland did. This brings so many advantages, such as true…
Wayland security is a side effect of how the core protocol works. In X, you have one giant buffer, while in Wayland, each application renders to its own buffer and pushes that buffer to the compositor when ready.