It's been almost two decades and we're still taking steps backwards on accessibility and features because of Wayland.

From day 0 Wayland put their idea of a beautiful design above the needs of users. It's hard to see how we can claim to be inclusive when even our most basic decisions are hostile to large groups of users.

I never thought I would say this, but after 30 years of open source and Linux I don't see much of a bright future. Everyone I know from the community back then has moved on to using a Mac because of these issues.

▲

tapoxi 19 hours ago | parent | next [-]

But the Mac compositor (Quartz) implements the same permission model as Wayland, that's why you get a popup requesting permissions to share screen etc.

	▲	wmf 18 hours ago \| parent [-]
		This particular case is about accessibility not permissions. AFAIK accessibility still isn't completely supported in major Wayland compositors so it's a legitimate complaint.

▲

hwsrtejk 19 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Absurd ideas like "applications shouldn't be able to spy on or manipulate each other without explicit permission from the user".

▲

roenxi 16 hours ago | parent | next [-]

Wayland, traditionally, has not believed that. It believed "applications shouldn't be able to spy on or manipulate each other" and doesn't give users any mechanism to suggest that they might have permission to do so because the idea of that happening was just not on their radar.

I'm not sure about the modern state of Wayland but last time I saw it the situation was terribly messy and I was forced back to X11 because I rely on screensharing to do my job properly.

	▲	ac29 6 hours ago \| parent [-]
		> I was forced back to X11 because I rely on screensharing to do my job properly. Wayland screensharing has worked for a long time. I remember using it early in the pandemic when the entire working world seemed to move to Zoom/etc for meetings. So, at least ~5 years?

▲

Lammy 16 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

I gave my explicit permission by choosing to run the software in the first place.

▲

yjftsjthsd-h 18 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

Nobody said anything about that. Is there any reason that Xorg couldn't tack on a permission system, other than that it would be inelegant?

	▲	fanf2 9 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		There were X11 extensions that implemented access controls, eg in TrustedSolaris.
	▲	cies 17 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		> Is there any reason that Xorg couldn't tack on a permission system, other than that it would be inelegant? That's the whole reason for Wayland's existence: such things were not "easily" possible... Linux+Xorg desktop would be hopelessly insecure for ever because these security features were deemed too hard to the point of not being "worth it". So Wayland was started. Someone is developing XLibre, and Xorg fork. It may be pulled off, but I doubt it. Making Xorg safe was tried many times for many safety-holes.

▲

nurettin 17 hours ago | parent | prev | next [-]

"There should be global hooks and applications should be able to register themselves should they wish" would solve all these cases, but horse blinders are also very important to wear.

▲

17 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

[deleted]

▲

koiueo 18 hours ago | parent | prev [-]

> Everyone I know from the community back then has moved on to using a Mac because of these issues.

It's your bubble.

At the same time, I know many who have been forced to use Macs (macOS is new windows), but keep using Linux outside of work.