Path: csiph.com!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail From: rbowman Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.misc Subject: Re: Artix Linux and Xlibre Date: 9 Aug 2025 22:26:44 GMT Lines: 25 Message-ID: References: <1063lgp$jmj$2@reader1.panix.com> <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> <106s6ae$2irb0$6@dont-email.me> <106thun$2tl20$1@dont-email.me> <20250805120229.00002255@gmail.com> <106ulcf$35j8e$3@dont-email.me> <20250806090124.00005af4@gmail.com> <10716ac$3ok85$4@dont-email.me> <20250807141447.000028d3@gmail.com> <20250807155622.00003411@gmail.com> <1073tqh$empg$7@dont-email.me> <20250808084918.00007e14@gmail.com> <1075q17$ukab$5@dont-email.me> <20250808153858.00006557@gmail.com> <1077642$17kq4$3@dont-email.me> Mime-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Trace: individual.net MCCOusfVZX4aHfOwlBuB7wk2qQMCQnPgzN26AceAstjxCv92Ob Cancel-Lock: sha1:QUJ5JcWDzqcL+EfdCG/O+b3DmtM= sha256:B3rFjYX1pAz6f6z+roZf0gPW+WyXpJuLXWG3LQNk5OM= User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.misc:70712 On Sat, 9 Aug 2025 10:58:26 +0100, The Natural Philosopher wrote: > On 08/08/2025 23:38, John Ames wrote: >> And that rationale never made sense to begin with. If it were*ever* the >> case that malicious actors could remotely induce a Wayland server to >> display information and accept input on a user session, security >> would*already* be compromised, whether they could control window size/ >> position or not. The thing to do is design a system where that *can't >> happen* - hobbling legit programs on the off chance that you might >> slightly hamper some future burglar is just inane. > > Its the same logic that says you need to have locks on all your > cupboards in case someone breaks into the house...There is a slender > thread of logic, but not much, > > Since the cupboards would all have the keys in them anyway if they were > in regular use... I'm amused by some of the schemes that require physical access to the system. While that may be a concern in enterprise or public settings it's not a big worry for my home systems. I have several Malicious Actor Deterrent Systems in place, In the US there are politicians that would prefer your firearms in locked cupboards if not removed from your hands completely.