Hacker News Reader

Comment by its_ubuntu | Hacker News Reader

[dead]

You can minimize tearing with double buffering so it's pretty rare but you can't completely eliminate it. Xorg by design cannot guarantee perfect frames. Tearing is something you'll notice every time it happens, whereas latency is not something that's necessarily an issue, and modern compositors have substantially reduced this latency.

I'm not really sure why Wayland gets all the hate it does, you'd think desktop Linux was perfect before Wayland came along and made everything totally unusable. As for myself, it's been a much better experience than Xorg ever was, pretty much since day one -- I've never had a torn frame, I've never had any issues with input lag, and I've never had to fuss with video settings. Not once. I'm sure some people have, but across a dozen machines I've had exactly zero problems in...a few months shy of a decade.

Let's not forget Xorg's own devs have put it on life support and recommend Wayland, which was created by Xorg devs, going forward. Nobody wants to maintain 35-year old spaghetti code of a fundamentally flawed design.

> latency is not something that's necessarily an issue

Of course it is not. Especially when GUI elements are black, waiting for the next, or other, frame. (hello Microsoft).

Out of curiosity, are you using nvidia? Which drivers are you using? I've never experienced this issue with an Intel or AMD graphics, even on a budget laptop.

I prefer X11 as well, but it has some security issues. Notably, all applications can read your input at any time. It's really hard to sandbox.

Wayland brought some irritations, including increased latency, and an architecture that requires rethinking all window managers. A rewrite is not enough. Very annoying.

I will never understand why "the computer can tell what input it is receiving" has turned into an accepted threat model.

I understand that we have built a computer where our primary interface depends on running untrusted code from random remote locations, but it is absolutely incredible to me that the response to that is to fundamentally cripple basic functionality instead of fixing the actual problem.

We have chosen to live in a world where the software we run cannot be trusted to run on our computers, and we'd rather break our computers than make another choice. Absolutely baffling state of affairs.

Defense in depth. One compromised application may do a lot of harm if it has access to your keyboard inputs. Supply chain attacks are not that uncommon. While you can trust software developers, you cannot completely trust their builds.

I have doors between rooms in my house, despite its being inhabited by members of the same family who trust each other.

And when someone violates that trust, do you then tear the house down and build one with only external doors, requiring inhabitants to circle in the yard to move between rooms? The point of the Wayland security model is that the inhabitants of the house do not trust each other, and the architecture of the house must change to accommodate that.

I'm not impressed with the analogy. I am not confused about the goals of Wayland's security model. I am dismayed at the poor judgment elsewhere in computing that has led to its necessity.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com