|
|
|
|
|
by badgersnake
309 days ago
|
|
No, Wayland is clearly better here. Not allowing an app to do a potentially stupid privacy compromising thing is better that allowing it by default and providing no way to block it. Better does not necessarily mean good though, that Mac approach of block by default but allow users to enable these things for specific apps on settings would be a great improvement. |
|
In the X11 case, I can uninstall the app and install one that uses an offline dictionary and gives me a scan feature. That very much is a way to "block" it. Wanting a scan feature is not wrong. It's my computer. I want it. In the Wayland case, I cannot do _anything_ about it. The X11 situation is thus obviously better.
It's not like "define current selection" is some niche feature either. It's a default feature in macOs, iOS and Android.
You either do it the macos way or the windows/x11 way. You cannot half-ass something in between. That is just security theatre and is utterly retarded. Every wayland release until it makes a macos-style permission system (I dont care whether the default is accept or deny) is pure cancer. And every distro/DE that pushes wayland onto you until that point is also cancer.
</rant>