Skip to main content
As far as I can tell, Wayland's security model seems to be "users doing stuff means they could do bad stuff!"
GNU Too
GNU Too  
•
make experience working in the corporate world is that is what the lawyers tell us we have to do.
Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
@silverwizard To this day I still can't read "Wayland" without the Weyland Consortium corporation from the Android Netrunner card game coming to mind.
@silverwizard
silverwizard
silverwizard  
@argv minus one so the issue with "apps might do weird things" but that restricts privileged users. We shouldn't protect people from having fun
@argv minus one

GNU Too reshared this.

Hypolite Petovan
Hypolite Petovan  
•
@Sarah Brown @silverwizard I'm less familiar with it, so it only came second to my mind!
@Sarah Brown @silverwizard
silverwizard
silverwizard  

@argv minus one so I mean, the permission system existing means the app could edit it

Apps can do anything, that's their point

@argv minus one
silverwizard
silverwizard  
@argv minus one how do you stop the OS from being a playpen or make screenreaders work?
@argv minus one
silverwizard
silverwizard  
@argv minus one so you envision a blind user navigating a sprawling permission structure before setting up accessibility?
@argv minus one
silverwizard
silverwizard  

@argv minus one The issue is that Wayland just bans them outrightly

But if you need permissions for them, fine, but if they are able to self-declare then you can use that to bootstrap a perm bypass.

This system you envision is just a tool to annoy people with *no value*

@argv minus one
ð’€­ð’‚—ð’†  ENKI ][e
ð’€­ð’‚—ð’†  ENKI ][e  
•
this is an excellent description of my least favorite kind of security thinking, thank you
⇧