Xorg development effort slowing in favour of Wayland
SlackwareThis Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.
Notices
Welcome to LinuxQuestions.org, a friendly and active Linux Community.
You are currently viewing LQ as a guest. By joining our community you will have the ability to post topics, receive our newsletter, use the advanced search, subscribe to threads and access many other special features. Registration is quick, simple and absolutely free. Join our community today!
Note that registered members see fewer ads, and ContentLink is completely disabled once you log in.
If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us. If you need to reset your password, click here.
Having a problem logging in? Please visit this page to clear all LQ-related cookies.
Get a virtual cloud desktop with the Linux distro that you want in less than five minutes with Shells! With over 10 pre-installed distros to choose from, the worry-free installation life is here! Whether you are a digital nomad or just looking for flexibility, Shells can put your Linux machine on the device that you want to use.
Exclusive for LQ members, get up to 45% off per month. Click here for more info.
Comparing security issues are enough for me to agree with the switch
I browsed briefly through the Xorg list. Admittedly it is a long list (!), but I could not find a single one which would affect an environment in which :
1. the Xorg server does not accept direct tcp connections from the outside world
2. the system running the Xorg server does not accept ssh sessions (with or without X11 port forwarding) from the outside world /* I later realize this is probably not relevant but the next one may be */
3. users on any system who export their DISPLAY to the Xorg server do not also run graphical apps over ssh to a remote system with ssh X11 port forwarding
Quote:
Originally Posted by marav
Not to mention the features
But please do mention the features. What features in a slackware+xwayland environment would benefit you?
Last edited by John Lumby; 12-22-2023 at 04:49 PM.
The security argument is bogus. People are performing an Apples-to-Oranges comparison. AS already noted by others in this thread, Wayland is a Protocol, X11 is an Implementation of a Protocol. None of the issues in the link you provided are for wayland, they are all adjancent to wayland. Why the fuck is flatpak in there??? https://xkcd.com/2494 seems applicable here.
If this is the argument you want to make, then you need to compile a list of bugs for all the major wayland compositors being developed. Then you need to break that down by Resolve_Date and Time_To_Resolve. Then do that to to libX11 and xorg-server. And then you need to admit that your data is flawed because it does not include all unreported exploits.
Then do that for KDE, GNOME, and XFCE. Your NIST list has 142 issues listed, but only 3 of those are from 2023. And they were all fixed within the same year. Compare that to their list of 179 KDE issues: https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/res...meSearch=false
Is it just me, or are people using the existence of bugs in underlying subsystems to avoid fixing the higher level applications? So much screaming over X and SysV init, for what? This reminds me of that old survey where someone went through and counted the CVE's for gnome vs KDE and concluded that gnome is more secure. Next thing you know Red Hat declared gnome their default and people are acting like it's just sooooo much better with its fancy touchscreen UI. https://nvd.nist.gov/vuln/search/res...meSearch=false
Unless you are viewing LQ from links then complaining about security flaws in X is just senseless babbling. Your web browser has more holes than a spaghetti strainer.
Last edited by Pithium; 12-22-2023 at 04:30 PM.
Reason: severe? secure?
This is very helpful indeed. Now all I need to go with it is a shiny new desktop system and monitor to try it out on.
(Well -- I suppose it is pointless trying out some window-display environment setup like this in a VM? Or is it? Any suggestions?)
This is very helpful indeed. Now all I need to go with it is a shiny new desktop system and monitor to try it out on.
(Well -- I suppose it is pointless trying out some window-display environment setup like this in a VM? Or is it? Any suggestions?)
Generally a virtual guest does not have direct access to the physical display, so pointless is a good term.
I am running with an option on login: I can currently select from Plasma on Wayland, Plasma on X11, or Fluxbox on X11. I could absolutely add a half dozen different DM/display server options. I get to test any of them on the distribution I know and use daily, directly on my hardware, and without any multiboot complications.
Remember, evolution has no blueprint. It can branch off in any direction, including backwards.
Remember too that there are modern developments which are seriously retrograde. Touchscreen controls in cars, for example. Are they safer than using a mobile phone while driving? I don't think so.
I think the biggest problem with developments in Linux these days is that they are driven by the under-40s generation, who automatically assume everything old needs to be replaced by something better. It's only when they are in the thick of it that they realise things aren't quite as straightforward. But that's how they will learn. Just a shame we're the collateral damage along the way.
In the case of X.Org it really DID need replacing. The codebase had gotten so large, convoluted, and kludged up that it was hard to maintain much less develop. Wayland did not cause that, the X.Org developers started Wayland to have a fresh, clean, pure codebase that they COULD support. I see that as an improvement, but then I am a developer (but NOT of X.Org or Wayland!).
In the case of X.Org it really DID need replacing. The codebase had gotten so large, convoluted, and kludged up that it was hard to maintain much less develop. Wayland did not cause that, the X.Org developers started Wayland to have a fresh, clean, pure codebase that they COULD support. I see that as an improvement, but then I am a developer (but NOT of X.Org or Wayland!).
From the last 2 posts, it sounds like X (& Wayland) both lack a BDFL.
Someone with a vision of where the project is going, whose word will be accepted as final in that project, and who can tweak things (imposing extra work on some) without pissing everyone off and starting numerous forks.
The kernel, or Slackware are examples of how to do it. Star Office/Openoffice an example of how not to. Ditto Mozilla/Firefox.
From the last 2 posts, it sounds like X (& Wayland) both lack a BDFL.
Someone with a vision of where the project is going, whose word will be accepted as final in that project, and who can tweak things (imposing extra work on some) without pissing everyone off and starting numerous forks.
The kernel, or Slackware are examples of how to do it. Star Office/Openoffice an example of how not to. Ditto Mozilla/Firefox.
Please allow me to introduce Adam Jackson aka ajax. Served as release manager for Xorg server for many years, rates himself as one of the three people in the world who fully understands xinput and has ripped hundreds of thousands of lines of dead code from X. Also involved with initiating Wayland after deciding that a rewrite from the ground up was the cleanest way to move to the future.
I saw a recording of him doing a presentation on X and its problems at a Linux conference many years ago. An extremely impressive performance.
I will switch to wayland when it provides a simple stand-alone display manager like fluxbox. I'm not interested in something that only works in gnome or KDE.
Been using Sway for years with no loss of workflow in my case. Wayland just works once you take a few minutes to swap out the X specific program for the ones from Wayland https://arewewaylandyet.com/ is helpful
I will switch to wayland when it provides a simple stand-alone display manager like fluxbox. I'm not interested in something that only works in gnome or KDE.
+1 on that. I have found most kde apps generally don't excel, k3b and kwvdial (from the dialup days) being exceptions.
I will switch to wayland when it provides a simple stand-alone display manager like fluxbox. I'm not interested in something that only works in gnome or KDE.
Okay, syntax switch here. I understand perfectly what you mean, but X.ORG does not work in GNOME or KDE. Wayland does not work in GNOME or KDE. Gonme and KDE work on TOP of (or in) X.ORG and Wayland. Wayland and X.ORG are communication protocols and windowing systems, everything else desktop runs WITHIN the Windowing System.
The difference might mean nothing to a non-techie user, but matters to developers and system admins who cannot afford sloppy thinking on these subjects.
Fluxbox will run better on X.ORG than on Wayland (because it was DESIGNED for that) but will also run on Wayland if you use XWayland and set things right. Personally, I would not bother. Right now both X.ORG and Wayland run well enough that we can pick the best for our current setup. I run both, and can pick which I want on startup.
Wayland will never offer the features of fluxbox, neither will X.Org: that is not what they are for. The things that provide that look and feel run on top of something that provides the features X.Org and Wayland provide.
Sway is DESIGNED to run on Wayland, as a replacement for i3 with the same look-and-feel and configuration. From the sway web site:
Quote:
Sway is a tiling Wayland compositor and a drop-in replacement for the i3 window manager for X11. It works with your existing i3 configuration and supports most of i3's features, plus a few extras. Sway allows you to arrange your application windows logically , rather than spatially.
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing
Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute
content, let us know.