[roenxi]

> When Linux goes off and decides it'll rewrite its working desktop stack and it's still, ten years later, not useable?

In fairness it wasn't just the rewrite that was the problem, but it looks for all the world like there was a large faction in the Linux UI world around Wayland that believes accessibility is insecure and designed the new systems to make it impossible. It has been an interesting if unfortunate situation that seems to be slowly being fixed.

[TeMPOraL]

> but it looks for all the world like there was a large faction in the Linux UI world around Wayland that believes accessibility is insecure and designed the new systems to make it impossible

Agreed.

FWIW, accessibility is insecure, that is a fact, and it's also fine. The problem is that many security-minded people forget to ask the critical question: security for whom, and from what. There is no such thing as "security" in general. There is always a subject being secured from a threat.

With Wayland, like with most modern software development, the user ends up being the thing to secure from, and what is being protected are the interests of the vendor.

[randomNumber7]

Why was gnome pushed so hard? In my eyes it looks horrible and I still prefer xfce...

[robotnikman]

I wonder the same thing. I've been using KDE Plasma and have not looked back.

[LtWorf]

All of this in the name of being able to run proprietary malware like you do on android.

[MrDrMcCoy]

What on earth are you referring to?

[LtWorf]

That the security model on Unix (and Linux) is to trust your applications and mistrust other users of the same machine.

While now the security model is that your applications are closed source and you cannot trust them, which is why you need wayland.

[anthk]

9front tells me otherwise. It's security model with namespaces and rfork it's far more tuned to modern times than the GNU/Linux or BSD one where even wth mitigations and the like a good crafted NES sound file (6502 code in the end, as C64 MOD files) could cause mayhem on some buffer overflow executing x86 code.

rio(1) windows under plan9/9front have their own namespace and OFC you can restrict these per windows making these kind of attacks futile.

[tmtvl]

How's the a11y story under Plan 9? I always thought of Plan 9 as being very forward thinking for its time but unfortunately stuck in the past in various ways, but are there screen readers and voice input and everything?

[anthk]

nothing yet but an flite port. But by design it's far easier than with X and/or with DBUS.

[simoncion]

> [T]he security model on Unix (and Linux) is to trust your applications

If that were true, httpd (and all other system daemons) would be run as root and neither the 'nobody' user and group nor the various security-related X11 extensions would exist.

Anyone who has worked in this field for more than a few years (regardless of their era of entry) knows that nontrivial programs are faulty and can happen to or be induced to do things that are harmful in varying degrees to the operation of the computer that runs them.

[LtWorf]

Protecting against accidental mistakes and expecting applications to steal data are different levels.