back
3 comments
Well, it allowed local users to actually use their computers for computing instead of just safely consuming "apps" -- obviously that needed to go.
Letting any GUI application capture all input and take full control of the desktop completely defeats the point of sandboxing and X11 does exactly that.
> Defeats the point of sandboxing

Sandboxing defeats the point of said applications. If you want your computer to have no functionality, check out Figma. A clickable prototype sounds like precisely the security the world needs right now.

So accordingly, ActiveX was a brilliant idea and any web page should be able to execute code in the kernel context, otherwise no meaningful functionality can be provided
The whole problem with wayland is this mistaken absurd belief that the security standards of a desktop are equivalent to those of a website.
Yawn, X11 (and similar "unsecure" desktop environments) existed for half a century and the sky hasn't fallen. I'm tired of that "will somebody think of the children/grandparents" scare mongering.
It hasn't, but Windows has had its fair share of keyloggers, RATs, and so on, and I think we can all agree that anti-virus software is an inherently flawed concept.

The only thing keeping those away from Linux was its market share. With npm malware on the rise, this is no longer enough of a protection.

Keyloggers for example.

Linux always has been a system were the existence of malware was ignored, specially Desktop, contrary to other OSes (tooling included). But since a couple of years ago can be observed (I observe) slooow movements trying to correct this colossal mistake.

If this is the best way to do it or not, I do not enter. I particularly just welcome most of the advancements about this matter in Linux due such absence of worrying, keeping my fingers crossed that the needed tooling arrives on time (ten years behind Windows, I think).

so the security um, hack here is that someone has unauthorized access to your machine. its not related to x11. If you run untrusted code, thats it... who cares about x11?
Why did you used the "untrusted code" term? sounds like if you were delegating all the weight over the user's shoulders,

two years ago, trusted code like xz-utils [0] had seven months of freedom in the infected systems.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=39891607

> its not related to x11

Ideally one want to detect malware the earlier possible, and try to restrict what they can do from the beginning, until is noticed.

In this case Wayland, voluntarily or not, it's more restrictive than X11 with the access to screen and keyboard.

I know, I know, later the reply of the community will be a couple of downvotes more and "that already existed", "you could use, bla bla bla", and this is how Linux is ten years (minimal) behind Windows in tooling for this matter ¯\_(ツ)_/¯