sprash

Wayland does not care about security. In fact it does not even offer standardized access control protocols. The flaw here (among many others) is that the protocol that is responsible for negotiating display output for multiple processes (which is what Wayland tries to be) should also contain standardized interfaces to exchange that output among processes, but Wayland doesn't.

Legitimate concerns of people that have a severely degraded user experience are not flamewar. Xorg lost most of its corporate support which moved mostly to Wayland, that is true. Despite this Wayland has very poor adoption rate. The main reason for this is that Wayland has many unfixable flaws at the concept level that have been discussed here many times.

Actually they don't work "on Wayland". The Wayland protocol provides no mechanisms for screen sharing and it is not intended that it ever will. Screen sharing has to be done by external protocols that are either compositor specific or using a somewhat standardized dbus protocol that is completely separate from Wayland.

> It shouldn't be possible for a chat program that someone exploited to be able to access your ssh private keys

So far this never happened on free operating systems running free software on X11. Hence I refuse to believe this is a realistic threat scenario. Severe sandboxing is only necessary for untrusted/non-FOSS software otherwise it just harms user experience an productivity especially for power users.

> the state we are today with virus scanners and the like. Generally you want to trust as little as possible

This is only true if you run closed source software on non-free systems. I honestly can't remember that I ever had to use a virus scanner on Linux or UNIX.

> I have difficulty understanding how a reasonable person can come to such a conclusion.

The applications are very niche. Compilers are usually not smart enough to utilize SIMD, it is a hit or miss. And in order to implement properly efficient SIMD algorithms you need experts that are rare. Furthermore many algorithms that work great with SIMD work even better as compute shader on your run of the mill cheap iGPU.

The application of this article is the best example how irrelevant SIMD really is: How many Terabytes of UTF8 are you converting to UTF16 per day? probably zero.

The hatred is probably not that "irrational". We live in an era where specialized hardware for specialized problems is required because new manufacturing processes may give us a (seemingly slowing down) increase of transistor budget but not really better switching frequencies. We will have units for matrix multiplication, video codecs, AI cores or full blown GPUs. All those units can only be fast in specialized hardware because of predictable memory access patterns and arranging memory/cache topology accordingly "solving" the problem of low switching frequency with high bandwidth. A general purpose CPU however should specialize on unpredictable memory access. This means AVX-512 is somewhat misplaced on a CPU and probably only exists because it served Intel to create nice numbers in irrelevant benchmarks.

No! The Wayland protocol provides no mechanisms for screen sharing and it is not intended that it ever will. Screen sharing has to be done by external protocols that are either compositor specific or using a somewhat standardized dbus protocol that is completely separate from Wayland.

> That make no sense. Those are big and doesn't fit all purposes.

It makes sense because Wayland was invented for the purpose of forcing hobbyists and power users into ecosystems that are 100% corporate controlled.

Yes. Similarly a crash of Xorg will bring down all running applications. However thanks to standardized interfaces in X11 both the window manager and the compositor can independently crash or even replaced at runtime by a different program without affecting running programs. This just shows how much further ahead X11 is on a conceptual level and how bad the Wayland design philosophy really is.

The presenter says that you should not write native Wayland clients at all but use either Gtk or Qt.

He recommends wlroots. (Which means it won't work with Nvidia GPUs btw.)

I only know this word from context. And it is actually written with "k". So what does it mean? (Context/my reasoning: If you have to prove that you are a smart programmer you can't stay away from learning Rust. Hence it is kryptonite.)

It is not rapidly and widely accepted. It is pushed by a small but very vocal minority for all the wrong reasons.

When you have to prove your intelligence level (or rather "street cred") in a competitive market you have to show that you can learn the newest complicated things quickly. Rust is pure cryptonite in such a world.

Why would that be bad?

> This inflation issue is entirely a making of our own shortsightedness.

Yes, central banks printing money relentlessly for more than a decade has nothing to with it. We the people are to blame!

I know you are trying to be funny. But it's a rather sad story after all.

I find the concept of MGR is very intriguing. Imagine creating GUIs simply by writing escape codes to stdout. No need to deal with C-libraries, the GUI can be completely language agnostic and all applications work instantly over network as well (file descriptors for frame buffers of e.g. OpenGL applications running locally could simply be exchanged via pidfd_getfd syscall but that wouldn't work over the network obviously). Maybe something like MGR2 should replace X11 instead of Wayland.

Next year all x86_64 patents will expire. From then on everybody can make a IME/PSP/Pluton-free x86_64 chip. This makes RISC V completely obsolete since the x86 ecosystem is obviously much more mature.

It is just your personal assumption that they are the "same people". But it would make sense because due to lack of standardized interfaces Wayland forces every functionality into a monolithic implementation which is the opposite of small and modular.

X does not implement everything and the kitchen sink. A bare Xserver won't even be usable without a dedicated window manager, the compositor is completely replaceable and runs as a separate process, etc. Just because it is perceived by some to be bloated doesn't mean it is monolithic.

X is a protocol just like Wayland. One of those protocols contains a standardized interface to implement window managers the other doesn't. The argument people are trying to make is that a display stack should have such a standardized interface.

It's obvious sabotage. Don't ever use GNOME, don't use GNOME software, don't contribute to GNOME projects, don't go to their conferences and don't ever give them money.

It's still not running properly and obviously requires many workarounds for problems known for years. So, Which part? every part.

If thier customers demand Wayland support they have to do it I guess. To me it seems like a huge waste of everybody's time. Wayland offers zero advatages over existing solutions.

Is there something similar for Stack Overflow?

> I don't see why so many people are against Mozilla using donations how they see fit.

Because people donating to Mozilla are expecting that those funds are used for the browser and not a string of experiments that fail miserably. People rightfully feel betrayed and stop donating.

> Mozilla need to diversify

Exactly wrong. Mozilla needs to concentrate on the Browser and should cut off all excess expenses and useless experiments. The goal should be to minimize cost and thus reduce the reliance on Google money which should be replaced by pure donation money.

> slow to the point of being unusable

ble.sh has a vast array of configuration options. By disabling features I didn't like or need I was able to make it run pretty fast and responsive.

For now maybe (I wouldn't believe those polls sponsored by state media for a second btw.). Even the strongest anti-Putin propaganda campaign will go up in flames as soon as people have sit in the cold and lose their jobs at the same time. Then it's a very convenient situation for politicians that the pipelines can't easily be switched on again because they got "somehow damaged". Therefore it was most probably an inside job.

I strongly disagree. People in Germany couldn't care less about Ukraine because it is far away. Most assume that Putin will win this war anyways. However, they care strongly about cheap Gas because it directly influences their lives.

Indeed. It's most probably an inside job.

There was actually not much need of drivers or firmware. 3Dfx products had a very simple and straight forward way to write commands directly to registers [1][2][3].

1.: https://web.archive.org/web/20180220234020/https://www.openg...

2.: https://web.archive.org/web/20180629191415/http://www.opengl...

3.: https://web.archive.org/web/20180628125330/http://www.opengl...