Wayland on FreeBSD
steve at sohara.org
Wed Apr 22 16:18:03 UTC 2020
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:42:55 -0400
Robert Huff <roberthuff at rcn.com> wrote:
> Steve O'Hara-Smith writes:
> > > Am I not understanding. or does that sound slow and full of
> > > possible failure modes?
> > It does to me, but I know little to nothing of the innermost
> > details. I've looked into Wayland a few times in fair detail and
> > have yet to see a benefit. I know X is decried as a security horror
> > story, yet active exploits seem curiously rare and it has always
> > worked well for me.
> I generally hear three main criticisms:
> 1) Full of known/possible exploits and security holes
Which never seem to actually cause problems, usually because
they're a bit like the cluttered desk and safe with post-it that would be a
security problem were they not inside an access controlled area with tight
> 2) Based on 1980s concepts and hardware (which affects what code
> is written and how)
Hmm unix is based on 1970s concepts and 1960s hardware, it seems to
have aged well. Like X it has accumulated some (nearly) obsolete layers
like the incredible range of dumb terminal (mis)designs that curses can cope
with and the enormous termcap/terminfo database of capabilities and quirks
that drives it.
I've seen complaints about the baggage of 1980s style graphics
primitives (stippled polygon fills etc.) and fonts which are valid I
suppose but it doesn't seem to have got in the way of adding GPU supported
acceleration or anti-aliased outline fonts.
> 3) "It just grew." (Which contributes to (1).)
That I'd have to disagree with, the gap betweem X11Rn and X11Rn+1
was always long and seemed to involve considerable care and there has never
been an X12 (despite getting to X11 between 1984 and 1987).
Steve O'Hara-Smith | Directable Mirror Arrays
C:\>WIN | A better way to focus the sun
The computer obeys and wins. | licences available see
You lose and Bill collects. | http://www.sohara.org/
More information about the freebsd-questions