Skip site navigation (1)Skip section navigation (2)
Date:      Wed, 22 Apr 2020 17:17:51 +0100
From:      Steve O'Hara-Smith <steve@sohara.org>
To:        Robert Huff <roberthuff@rcn.com>
Cc:        freebsd-questions@freebsd.org
Subject:   Re: Wayland on FreeBSD
Message-ID:  <20200422171751.e85396afb993a0c61a248565@sohara.org>
In-Reply-To: <24224.26111.448437.531092@jerusalem.litteratus.org>
References:  <CAFYkXjmfyLZAi1HZe-RE3wLxa6GRNP6GkmtZG-4T2puRDOz0JA@mail.gmail.com> <CAGLDxTX5EeL3YDUJocdOM03sRzUDi3ed9cKuNH99DieZbrhGHg@mail.gmail.com> <5058973.kMyvyFPq5o@amos> <CAB4989B-95E7-43B6-B338-B9524B9D9FDA@kreme.com> <20200421150741.28dd6309.freebsd@edvax.de> <24223.11679.688616.192643@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20200422023243.GA81187@neutralgood.org> <20200422070028.30dd2fb16ccae9b6d9cde901@sohara.org> <24224.11002.960241.607629@jerusalem.litteratus.org> <20200422124356.5329c504e03524a59b536cc6@sohara.org> <24224.26111.448437.531092@jerusalem.litteratus.org>

Next in thread | Previous in thread | Raw E-Mail | Index | Archive | Help
On Wed, 22 Apr 2020 11:42:55 -0400
Robert Huff <roberthuff@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
security.

> 	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/



Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <http://docs.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?20200422171751.e85396afb993a0c61a248565>