For who ? I mean as a layman in terms of development of a desktop environment, I want to know what security? Why do people keep discussing this word as if its everything there is.
I want to play a game or want to work on a spreadsheet file in my office cubicle. I don't care about security. I want to work. Or play. Depending.
Why are we stuck on abstraction layers that end users don't care about anyway and it often ends up confusing people.
Why should I not pay $50 to windows so that I can get on with the work that I want to do instead of fiddling with Linux and then to having to decide between x11 and wayland with your argument for Wayland being secuirty ?
Your reply is (respectfully) analog to : "Why do I care about this ssh security thing? I have always used telnet and it works fine."
In X11, there is the underlying expection is, that no program will misbehave evilly - and THAT has changed in Wayland and hence a lot of wayland is much more complicated and (some of it) unfinished.
A lot of "traffic copping" added, ensuring that the user is queried before privileged access is granted, the ability to capture raw video output of a window for example (through desktop portals) - or the ability to capture raw key strokes from another process windows (think password prompt).
I have been running Sway (on wayland obviously) for 18 months with almost zero issues.
Because you don't care about security does not mean it is not important. Pretty sure you don't want your bridge/microwave oven/smartphone/you name it to spontaneously catch fire and potentially burn down your house during the night, right? So you may not realize, but security matters to you.
> Why should I not pay $50 to windows so that I can get on with the work that I want to do instead of fiddling with Linux
If you don't want Linux for what Linux is, please buy whatever you want (Windows in that case)!
I would return the comment: I find that too many people want to use Linux because they don't want to pay for Windows. And then they complain that Linux is not Windows. If you want Windows, go for Windows. I actually dislike those distributions that try to make Linux feel like Windows: I went to Linux because it was not Windows, not because it was cheaper (it is not: it requires time).
I want to play a game or want to work on a spreadsheet file in my office cubicle. I don't care about security. I want to work. Or play. Depending.
Why are we stuck on abstraction layers that end users don't care about anyway and it often ends up confusing people.
Why should I not pay $50 to windows so that I can get on with the work that I want to do instead of fiddling with Linux and then to having to decide between x11 and wayland with your argument for Wayland being secuirty ?
Edit: not criticizing you.