Re: swc library to implement dwm under Wayland (was Re: [dev] gtk3 support for surf?)

From: FRIGN <>
Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2014 19:48:20 +0100

On Tue, 14 Jan 2014 09:43:03 -0500
Bobby Powers <> wrote:

> Can you explain your thinking here on security? Is it just that less
> compiled code == more secure?

No, it's just my problem with hotplugging input-devices. As my setup
doesn't change (I only have a mouse and keyboard), the respective
x-drivers are sufficient ;).

And of course, it saves some KB from the Kernel.

> Have you looked much at Weston? PAM integration is limited to 1 file
> & 3 functions, and could be trivially excised.

Then I wonder why they don't make it optional as a Compiler-Flag.

> How is this different from the tinyx project you mentioned? Ah,
> right, you like tinyx.

tinyx backports security-patches for X, so it's not a one-man's job.
However, I really have to include Hadrian's response here:

>> $ find swc -iname "*.[ch]" -exec cat '{}' \; | wc -l
>> 8350
>> $ find tinyxserver -iname "*.[ch]" -exec cat '{}' \; | wc -l
>> 235126

, which is definitely a fair point to make.

It may have been to much of a rant in my previous mail. I'm always open
to learn new things about Wayland!



Received on Tue Jan 14 2014 - 19:48:20 CET

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Tue Jan 14 2014 - 21:48:06 CET