@ElCanut@jlai.lu to linuxmemes@lemmy.world • 2 years agoOh no ...jlai.luimagemessage-square295arrow-up11.62K
arrow-up11.61KimageOh no ...jlai.lu@ElCanut@jlai.lu to linuxmemes@lemmy.world • 2 years agomessage-square295
minus-square@ExLisper@linux.communitylinkfedilinkEnglish7•2 years agoNo, you only should be using Wayland if you need some of it’s features. If you don’t need mixed refresh rate/mixed scaling you’re fine using X.
minus-squareBaut [she/her] auf.linkfedilink1•2 years agoX’ architecture is insecure. There’s no isolation between windows, and each process can spy on your input. That’s just one example. Wayland is necessary.
minus-square@ExLisper@linux.communitylinkfedilinkEnglish3•2 years agoYet no known active exploits use this insecure architecture to cause actual harm. It’s just another FUD.
minus-squareBaut [she/her] auf.linkfedilink1•2 years agoI’d hardly call that an exploit. There’s no protection.
No, you only should be using Wayland if you need some of it’s features. If you don’t need mixed refresh rate/mixed scaling you’re fine using X.
X’ architecture is insecure. There’s no isolation between windows, and each process can spy on your input. That’s just one example.
Wayland is necessary.
Yet no known active exploits use this insecure architecture to cause actual harm. It’s just another FUD.
I’d hardly call that an exploit. There’s no protection.