Path: csiph.com!eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: John Ames Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 11:26:46 -0700 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 45 Message-ID: <20250811112646.00004f89@gmail.com> References: <1063lgp$jmj$2@reader1.panix.com> <1063ruo$2kgsj$3@dont-email.me> <10640fb$1gqnn$2@dont-email.me> <106411i$2l2gd$3@dont-email.me> <10646dg$1gqnn$3@dont-email.me> <1064ag9$1kvkq$1@dont-email.me> <1064m75$1lvr1$1@dont-email.me> <10667je$35rkf$2@dont-email.me> <106bdkb$2s14s$1@dont-email.me> <106bjgj$2t9mq$5@dont-email.me> <106cld0$33q3n$2@dont-email.me> <106l5kp$133ed$3@dont-email.me> <106ohbv$1q0ne$1@dont-email.me> <106olee$1r0v9$1@dont-email.me> <106v28o$3889m$1@dont-email.me> <20250806092812.00002de9@gmail.com> <6897438e$0$16825$426a74cc@news.free.fr> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable Injection-Date: Mon, 11 Aug 2025 18:26:51 +0000 (UTC) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="20ddcf5c134940fbb46751ed8a0f4557"; logging-data="2831823"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19LwrVjFMdJ2Pifap/l9iimWCcFcr2/UW0=" Cancel-Lock: sha1:P0maCbjEeMOR3IWLZCqFXJOBjNs= X-Newsreader: Claws Mail 4.3.0 (GTK 3.24.42; x86_64-w64-mingw32) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:70791 On 09 Aug 2025 12:48:14 GMT St=E9phane CARPENTIER wrote: > > They seem to operate on some demented notion of "security" where GUI > > windows exist in total isolation from everything else, even in the > > same user session =20 >=20 > Let say that some well known browsers are providing inPrivate tabs. I > hope you never use them in X11. If I'm ever in a scenario where malicious actors have access to my display server, I have much bigger problems. > > Yes and no, but none of what you cite has anything to do with the > > point at issue, which is that every current GUI framework* _except_ > > Wayland provides the means for applications to do very basic things > > like size and position their windows =20 >=20 > And that's a good thing. I want to control my positioning windows once > and for all. I don't want any application to bypass that and have its > own life. And for your purposes, that's perfectly fine. But there are people out there who *do* want that, and who are you (or the Wayland devs) to say they're wrong? By all means, offer a display server/window manager with an option to disallow program-directed window sizing/placement; but deciding that common functionality like that is unnecessary is a great way to get on the nerves of people who *do* need it. Which is exactly where the Wayland devs have found themselves - their goal is to get everyone to join them in "the Wayland world,"* but they can't get the developers of prosumer software like KiCad to budge, because their proposal is literally "well, why don't you completely re- arrange your layout/workflow to suit our decisions about what functions you do or don't need, and in exchange you'll...get to say you support the tech stack of a minority of a minority of your userbase...?" * (Can we just note for a minute how *weird* these people are about a furshlugginer display server? Imagine how many freenix zealots would shit themselves if they heard MS employees talking about getting programs/people into "the WPF world" like they're lining up to drink the Sacred Poison Wine and beam up to the Mothership.)