2 deleted 264 characters in body
source | link

My issue is I'm trying to have a main Wayland based gui/desktop while X apps are isolated in containers. Isn't there a way to run those X apps inside containers without the Xwayland overhead?

No. The linkThe quoted comment is about the overhead of having to use X at all, instead of being able to use Wayland directlyconfused. Either because they don't know how to grant access to Wayland for Please carefully study the containerreply which immediately follows it, or because theand clears up this confusion.

You need an X server in any case.


If you want to run the same containers that rely on X; it's not really clear. There is no way to avoid this overhead ifan X app, and what you have X support as an explicit requirement!

The lower-overheadis a Wayland display server, you andneed secure wayan Xwayland to implement your goal would betranslate.

If you want to drop Xavoid overhead and usetake full advantage of Wayland's performance - then you need containers that support native Wayland with no translation layerscontainers. Like running Flatpak app containers are implemented usingapps under Wayland for this reason. AFAIK they do not attempt to provide any Qubes-like features when (AFAIK if you run Flatpak apps under an X desktop, it just gives up and allows full insecure X is usedaccess).

No. The link is about the overhead of having to use X at all, instead of being able to use Wayland directly. Either because they don't know how to grant access to Wayland for the container, or because the want to run the same containers that rely on X; it's not really clear. There is no way to avoid this overhead if you have X support as an explicit requirement!

The lower-overhead and secure way to implement your goal would be to drop X and use native Wayland with no translation layers. Flatpak app containers are implemented using Wayland for this reason. AFAIK they do not attempt to provide any Qubes-like features when X is used.

My issue is I'm trying to have a main Wayland based gui/desktop while X apps are isolated in containers. Isn't there a way to run those X apps inside containers without the Xwayland overhead?

The quoted comment is confused. Please carefully study the reply which immediately follows it, and clears up this confusion.

You need an X server in any case.


If you want to run an X app, and what you have is a Wayland display server, you need an Xwayland to translate.

If you want to avoid overhead and take full advantage of Wayland's performance - then you need containers that support native Wayland containers. Like running Flatpak apps under Wayland. (AFAIK if you run Flatpak apps under an X desktop, it just gives up and allows full insecure X access).

1
source | link

No. The link is about the overhead of having to use X at all, instead of being able to use Wayland directly. Either because they don't know how to grant access to Wayland for the container, or because the want to run the same containers that rely on X; it's not really clear. There is no way to avoid this overhead if you have X support as an explicit requirement!

The lower-overhead and secure way to implement your goal would be to drop X and use native Wayland with no translation layers. Flatpak app containers are implemented using Wayland for this reason. AFAIK they do not attempt to provide any Qubes-like features when X is used.