this post was submitted on 09 Oct 2023
72 points (98.6% liked)
Linux Gaming
15818 readers
54 users here now
Gaming on the GNU/Linux operating system.
Recommended news sources:
Related chat:
Related Communities:
Please be nice to other members. Anyone not being nice will be banned. Keep it fun, respectful and just be awesome to each other.
founded 4 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
view the rest of the comments
I mean, I don't disagree, but at some point it's gotta change if one is going to ever be able to have desktop apps that run sandboxed. X was never designed to have untrusted and trusted apps running on the same desktop, and the ways of approximating that are non-ideal.
What WM are you using? If it's sticking specific application windows on specific workspaces, i3 can do that:
https://i3wm.org/docs/userguide.html
And I understand that sway is mostly compatible with i3.
Why does the entire Linux community assume that sandboxed apps are something we all want/need these days? I have no interest in sandboxed apps tbh. It makes sense for certain situations but I'm happy without them. I don't like how Flatpak isolates all apps' config files off into their little sandboxes and makes editing config files annoying. I just want stuff maintained in a central package manager and I want to use software that's trustworthy enough that it doesn't need to be sandboxed in the first place.
I use Wayland, but mainly because VRR support is better (except having to keep rebuilding mutter-vrr every time GNOME updates) and I don't get screen tearing. Couldn't care any less than I do now about sandboxed apps or unnecessary forced security. I hate that screen capture gets broken on a lot of programs running in Wayland and that global keybinds get messed up because of "designed with security in mind" bullshit. An operating system's job should be to provide software with the features it needs, not to restrict said features.