Under the threat model of websites using browser exploits to grab other data on your system?
Or under the threat model of company policy or legislation not allowing you to handle confidential information on a system that can't offer even a basic guarantee of privacy.
Browsers already have multiple layers of sandboxes. You can always add another one to the browser if you are paranoid.
Personally I prefer not running untrusted javascript in the first place (where I can avoid it). An exploit that gains control of the browser is already a doomsday scenario if you are using the browser for internet banking, work or anything that matters. Being able to grab the input and output of other applications is a nothingburger in comparison.
> Or under the threat model of company policy or legislation not allowing you to handle confidential information on a system that can't offer even a basic guarantee of privacy.
Those are usually fine with running countless proprietary drivers and tools with root access. So in other words it's security threater.
I also prefer running trusted code, but that's not an option most of the time (for varying definitions of trust)
99% of the apps I use have no business with the contents of other apps I run so why allow it? Because X11 can't do anything about it is not a valid reason.
Last I'd checked, Windows had the same security issues as X, so it's unlikely to come up.
Next to that Windows has an even stronger permission model regarding DRMed content. But thats only to please movie studios it seems...
Few things are ever truly needed. Those things don't include Wayland. That doesn't mean there are reasons for it but it does mean you can't just discard the downsides.
> Xorg was complicated
And Wayland will be complicated too by the time its mature. Especially when you include all the other compontents needed to provide the same functionality as X.org
> Xorg was [...] insecure
Under what threat model? Personally I have no interest in the zero-trust model needed for proprietary app stores and would rather not pay the cost.
> the maintainers moved on to Wayland
A lot of those maintainers are employed by Red Hat and other corporations. They moved because their employers have reasons to move to Wayland - those reasons don't neccessarily matter to all users.
> Nobody else wanted to take up the mantle of maintaining an X implementation.
Isn't it a bit early to pronounce that. X is mature software. It works just fine for most people. Why would you expect someone to immediately jump at messing with it?