undefined | Better HN

0 pointsJoshTriplett2y ago0 comments

> So, basic functionality is still not there 15 years after release.

X11 didn't have what we currently consider "basic functionality" for decades after its release.

The design of X11 says that every application connected to your display is completely trusted, hence why it can grab any key (and thus be a keylogger if it wants to be). The design of Wayland starts with the premise that every application connecting to your display might not be completely trusted, and thus has to ask for a global key shortcut. That makes some things harder, requiring the design of a protocol for such requests. It also makes it possible to have sandboxed applications. That seems like a tradeoff worth making.

0 comments

enriquto2y ago

> The design of Wayland starts with the premise that every application connecting to your display might not be completely trusted,

What a strange premise... Do the wayland people have keylocks on all the rooms, drawers and cupboards on their houses?

Unix programs by default have access to all files in the user home. That's the main point of running programs after all: to edit your files. Letting these programs see all pixels in you screen does not seem that bad, does it?

If for some reason you want to run an untrusted application, use a container. But building your whole house around the "untrusted" premise sounds ridiculous.

linuxandrew2y ago

> If for some reason you want to run an untrusted application, use a container. But building your whole house around the "untrusted" premise sounds ridiculous.

I guess we should do away with memory protection as well. Filesystem permissions? Bah, they can go too, after all, a computer is generally used by a single person right?

The reality is that many users use untrusted applications that don't have access to home, ergo Flatpak. There are plenty of reasons why the free for all security model for X11 isn't suitable. Besides, that ship has well and truly sailed - most of the X11 devs have been working on Wayland for the better part of a decade now.

mcpackieh2y ago

> The reality is that many users use untrusted applications that don't have access to home, ergo Flatpak.

I'd like to see this quantified. How many people using flatpack are afraid of their application reading their files, vs using flatpack simply because it's a convenient way to install programs? I don't mean "oh me me!" responses, are there any user surveys to support the premise that average users are afraid of their applications?

Quite frankly I don't believe this level of paranoia is the norm. On Windows and MacOS, applications installed in the normal way can read the files on your desktop. This is the way it as always been on Linux too, with few exceptions. Letting the most paranoid users set the norms is a recipe for irrelevance. How popular is Qubes? It's a pain in the ass.

E1Q6Y57O2y ago

This is incorrect, apps installed through the macOS App Store have required sandboxing since 2012. Since 2018, Microsoft is also attempting to get developers to sandbox more apps, see more about that here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=36059982

1 more reply

mongol2y ago

It is not a strange premise. It is the security model that for example Android uses. Unix security model is dated, and it is good that steps are taken in this direction.

sam_lowry_2y ago

Android is different, it is built to run untrusted apps.

My Linux Desktop runs Chromium, xterm, IntelliJ and occasionally Gimp.

Do I need the Wayland security model? Hardly so.

Am I an outlier among Linux Desktop users? Hardly so.

E1Q6Y57O2y ago

Are you actually suggesting that most Linux desktop users only use the same 4 programs you do and will never use or install anything else? If that's the case then why bother with a display server or package managers? We can hardcode those 4 programs into the system, have them draw directly to the framebuffer and then we can remove the ability to install any other programs. Sound good to you?

bzzzt2y ago

The point is to reduce the attack surface, especially for browsers that run untrusted input. You don't want a local exploit in your browser (that hopefully is also configured not to have access to your entire filesystem) to screenshot other apps and websites. Maybe you disable all the warnings in IntelliJ too that prompt you to be careful when opening a new Git project from a remote source?

1 more reply

Shekelphile2y ago

It has nothing to do with security and everything to do with hollowing out all generic functionality and passing it on to the compositor. In other words, the devs are lazy and went for a minimalist approach and now we all get to suffer.

kingofpandora2y ago

Wow calling FOSS developers lazy is pretty low.

hifycycyv2y ago

> X11 didn't have what we currently consider "basic functionality" for decades after its release.

What's the relevance of this? You're position is that we should give up features we have for software that doesn't have them after 15 years of knowing they needed them.

JoshTriplettOP2y ago

No, my premise is that it takes time to develop features, and what's considered "basic" both changes over time and varies by person.

For instance, I would argue that "basic functionality" today, established by browsers and phones more than 15 years ago, is the ability to sandbox applications and not treat them as all-powerful. X still doesn't have that today. Wayland had that as a basic design premise from the beginning.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse

0 comments

enriquto2y ago

> The design of Wayland starts with the premise that every application connecting to your display might not be completely trusted,

What a strange premise... Do the wayland people have keylocks on all the rooms, drawers and cupboards on their houses?

If for some reason you want to run an untrusted application, use a container. But building your whole house around the "untrusted" premise sounds ridiculous.

linuxandrew2y ago

> If for some reason you want to run an untrusted application, use a container. But building your whole house around the "untrusted" premise sounds ridiculous.

I guess we should do away with memory protection as well. Filesystem permissions? Bah, they can go too, after all, a computer is generally used by a single person right?

mcpackieh2y ago

> The reality is that many users use untrusted applications that don't have access to home, ergo Flatpak.

E1Q6Y57O2y ago

1 more reply

mongol2y ago

It is not a strange premise. It is the security model that for example Android uses. Unix security model is dated, and it is good that steps are taken in this direction.

sam_lowry_2y ago

Android is different, it is built to run untrusted apps.

My Linux Desktop runs Chromium, xterm, IntelliJ and occasionally Gimp.

Do I need the Wayland security model? Hardly so.

Am I an outlier among Linux Desktop users? Hardly so.

E1Q6Y57O2y ago

bzzzt2y ago

1 more reply

Shekelphile2y ago

kingofpandora2y ago

Wow calling FOSS developers lazy is pretty low.

hifycycyv2y ago

> X11 didn't have what we currently consider "basic functionality" for decades after its release.

What's the relevance of this? You're position is that we should give up features we have for software that doesn't have them after 15 years of knowing they needed them.

JoshTriplettOP2y ago

No, my premise is that it takes time to develop features, and what's considered "basic" both changes over time and varies by person.

j / k navigate · click thread line to collapse