On Mon, Mar 14, 2022, 2:21 PM Marco Möller < ta...@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> wrote:
> On 14.03.22 18:28, Anssi Saari wrote: > > Marco Möller <ta...@debianlists.mobilxpress.net> writes: > > > >> I am not sure if I understood your answer. Is it a suggestion of what > >> should be of importance, or is it the confirmation that Wayland is > >> capable to configure clipboard access restrictive like this? > > > > Um, I thought a question mark is a fairly common indication of a > > question? I asked a question. > > Ah, now I understood. Well, then I try to answer to my best knowledge > assuming that my knowledge is not outdated. I am not a developer and > only repeat what I found stated by others, again not having a reference > but am citing from memory: > > > On 14.03.22 16:23, Anssi Saari wrote: > > Nicholas Geovanis <nickgeova...@gmail.com> writes: > > > >> Isn't it all about X by design to not be able to safely protect a > >> running X applications to snoop on other running X applications, > >> something like the content of a window cannot safely kept private? > > > > Well, what about something basic like allowing only specific apps to > > read the clipboard? Or maybe just the app that has focus, sort of like > > Android does it. > > > Wayland does not provide clipboard access restrictions out of the box. > But Wayland, other than X, makes it possible that restrictions like this > could be implemented! > I'm being misquoted, it wasn't actually me :-) Not a big deal. As Marco points out, there is no reason that actions at the window level could not be individually restricted. Modified windowing systems were doing that in secure computing in the early 1990s at least. Even restricted at the level of granularity of SElinux-style Mandatory Access Control. My comment is that one of the strengths of X Windows was the view of the graphics workstation as the server, but each application a client somewhere on the network, maybe local to the X server also. Diskless X workstations then implemented X servers partially in firmware (sometimes), tossing away local execution. No problem, in my experience. But has Wayland tossed out the functional separation between the X server hardware (in your box) and the OS? So that it can be closer to the graphics card? XFree86 did that if I'm not mistaken. Is that still necessary for performance or graphics compatibility reasons? The implementation would have to take place at the level of the > compositor, which is kind of the equivalent of the X Server. Brilliant. Exactly my point. As there > could be developed quite different compositors for Wayland, it thus will > .... > > Regards, Marco. >
