Good question.
It makes sand-boxing security impossible. The moment a process has access to the Xorg socket, it has access to everything. It is weird that this oftentimes misses from the discussion though.
It makes sand-boxing security impossible. The moment a process has access to the Xorg socket, it has access to everything. It is weird that this oftentimes misses from the discussion though.
Any extra effort on X11 might help to buy more time, but will in the end be for nothing. And in this time of supply-chain attacks, vs-code plugins, npm packages, agents and what-not, X11 is just too dangerous.
No, the orignal developers judged that they couldn't be bothered saving it. This has no relationship with whether it can be saved.
> Any extra effort on X11 might help to buy more time, but will in the end be for nothing. And in this time of supply-chain attacks, vs-code plugins, npm packages, agents and what-not, X11 is just too dangerous
Wow, this is some impressive vague fearmongering. Please explain what npm packages, vs-code plugins, and "agents" have to do with X11 being "just too dangerous"?
Here, I'll try one:
"Even in 2026 the developer of the i3 window manager says wayland isn't ready for real use. Any effort poured into wayland might delay it's inevitable collapse but in these days of nodejs, rising authoritarianism, and climate change it's clear that it will never actually gain wide acceptance"
May I suggest Xephyr, which will give you the X11 sandboxing that wayland people like to claim is impossible under X, using tech that's been around for about 20 years.
And you won't even need to replace your entire software stack with incompatible beta-quality software.