It's gotten to the point that the moment I see "Rust" and "TUI" together, I immediately assume it's vibe coded. The combination just seems to be vibe coders' favorite, for some reason.
>If you want to make a wild bet, go to the casino.
Are you seriously suggesting that the number of people attacking computer systems across the world, is the same as 20 years ago?
Wow.
No wonder why the X11 vs. Wayland argument can last for so long on HN when it's mostly ended in other Linux communities (sporatic controversies aside).
---
Furthermore. Nowhere did I mention the word virtualize in my original comment, and I do not think my comment warrants the paragraphs upon paragraphs of virtualization-bashing.
Oh no, not this again. The design of Wayland started 18 years ago, but the stabilization happened 14 years ago, and the _convincing_ across the ecosystem obviously happened way later than that.
I would put the year closer to 2016, when distros started to consider Wayland as an option.
Obviously, XZ happened on Debian. But $malware can occur on any Linux distribution at any time. For a recent example just look at Arch Linux.
Also, are we still assuming that we would still get only one attack over 20 years, instead of the frequency increasing to, say, one attack per year?
---
But those are not my original point, XZ utils was just an example.
My original point is that: why should we not practice defense-in-depth, where we make sure malwares have to jump through multiple hoops (and hope that they trip on one of them!) in order to launch an attack?
>I'm not sure I get what's being discussed here
I think it's the implication that any GUI program running under X can see any other GUI program and watch the user's interaction with the other programs. Vim is a CLI program though though...
> If we want to move to a version with minimal privileges
Then you would have to cut everything provided by the X protocol into many, smaller, controllable pieces. Because if the permission control is just a switch that says "ability to communicate with the X server", then the whole exercise is rather moot, isn't it.
And when you cut the protocol into smaller pieces...
> But granting full rights to distro-provided programs like vim or xeyes is perfectly sane
Saying this after the whole XZ utils ordeal has happened is quite interesting.
Can you really guarantee that your distro is not compromised? And if it is compromised, how can you easily _discover_ that a program is doing something strange?
X11 (the one that most people are familiar with, not the locked down one with X security -- because the latter introduces compatibility issues) does not have an access control model where programs can request for specific permissions.
In other words, xeyes would just work(TM) without the user granting it permission to read global mouse pointer position. And simultaneously, the same is true for $compromised_distro_provided_program.
It is disturbing, and it is hard to blame them. Given the political climate nowadays, I guess it's really hard to tell what is satire and what is real anymore.
Sometimes I see batshit insane takes on places like X, thought they were just satire. Later it turned out the posters were actually being dead serious.
Did you just miss the headline a few days ago, that IPv6 adoption has reached 50%?
You might be right if IPv6 adoption stayed at 10% or so. But the current trend suggests that sooner or later someone is going to demand IPv6 support on your side.
I doubt it honestly. Most people are connecting to sites like Youtube, Instagram etc., which do actually support IPv6.
It's how I get 60~80% IPv6 traffic on my home network. A great portion of it was because of my mom watching Youtube.
Even when you discount the services run by FAANG, for personal sites, Cloudflare and GitHub Pages (but surprisingly, not GitHub itself) support IPv6 and enable IPv6 support by default.
This article that "begs to differ" is inventing IPv6 all over again. It just refuses to call itself so.
I quote from the top comment:
>So you have to ship new code to every 'network element' to support IPv4x. Just like with IPv6.
and
>So you have to update DNS to create new resource record types [...] Just like with IPv6.
and
>You need to update socket APIs to hold new data structures for longer addresses so your app can tell the kernel to send packets to the new addresses. Just like with IPv6.
If bad routers etc. makes you think IPv6 is bad... then man, I think for me IPv4 is a mountain of shite.
But my comment was not directed at you, more so towards those people who looked at IPv6 very superficially (i.e. the ipV6 AddRESs iS UgLY!!1! people), so ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
You don't mention port forwarding without mentioning about hole punching.
Because what port forwarding is for, if not to ease the establishment of direct connections?
>You don't need to establish P2P connection
If you are seriously suggesting Server-Client Is All You Need (TM), I feel we might as well stop the discussion now. VoIP essentially requires P2P, WebRTC is much better with P2P. BitTorrent etc obviously runs on P2P.
Services that provide relays (for people who can't establish P2P connection) for free, can only do so because they expect most connections to NOT go through the relay, and so they could simply stomach the costs of running one small relay.