Except that in Firefox, when your focus is a text box the backspace key will not attempt to take you to a previous page. I am also extremely skeptical that Chrome does this.

No timetable. Wayland is a protocol between applications and the compositor, so remote support depends on the compositor. It's already being tackled, so I would be surprised if it didn't happen shortly after Wayland was rolled out on desktop distros.

There are certain environments where remote display is the *only* display, so if Wayland doesn't have it, Wayland doesn't go into those environments.

Then in such a case I would say two things:

First, why are you using a GUI in such a situation?

Second, X11 is not going away immediately, and no one expects it to. Qt and GTK+ will remain compatible with X11 for some time to come precisely because of this. And you'll still be able to access those remote X applications via XWayland.

Basically all that. Even over GigE simple things like gvim are a dog.

If I can stream a game from my desktop to a tablet and play it with virtually no latency, on Windows it should be possible for something implementing Wayland to stream individual application frame buffers across a network effortlessly - hell, it could do it with applications that are live on a remote screen and keep them alive if the remote server disconnects, something that always annoyed me.

Wayland will never support remote display because that's not not it works.

Wayland does not work over a network inherently, but there's no reason you couldn't forward the buffers over the network and have them composited remotely.

Someone could write a compositor that does the job, but the best anyone has come up with is VNC... ...which, IMHO, makes X11 look like a snappy protocol.

Except that X11 over the network with any modern toolkit is already effectively forcing X11 to do what Wayland will do - only X11 does it badly and without compression. And VNC sucks because it has to poll the whole desktop - Wayland could forward individual applications.

It's highly likely that Wayland's remote display will beat X. Virtually none of the features (remote drawing) that X provided over the network are used today (line/polygon drawing) and tool kits like Qt/GTK+ have you shipping framebuffers across the network, something built around manipulating frame buffers should be able to stream them over the network, individually, to a compositor on your system.

Wayland is critically important, which is why (unlike Pulseaudio) it hasn't already been rolled out yet. Qt has integrated it, Gnome has, KDE is porting KWin to implement it. There have been fairly few technical criticisms, the only one I've seen made with any muster has been network transparency - but even that could be solved rather easily given the way Wayland works with framebuffers.

On the flip side, Xorg has you dragging around unused cruft and the way it interfaces with the kernel forces some possible security holes be left open, holes that Wayland will fix.

They deferred on that to the platform. And stuff being routed to the CDM won't be handled by the browser anyway.

These licenses, by allowing in the "little bit of evil" that is represented by allowing their use in commercial proprietary contexts

Fixed that. Now this sentence is true.

The more compromising stance of organizations of MIT, Berkeley, Apache, and Mozilla -- and the myriad software projects that followed their lead -- is what changed the landscape.

Unfortunately you can't really assert that any of what you said is true. There are GPL projects that are equally, if not more, successful than equivalent projects under those licenses.

That's why they are only permitting the DRM module the bare minimum it requires to do it's job. Thus protecting your system from unauthorised access by the DRM module.

And I don't believe for a moment this is possible. Not by fault of Mozilla, but by what is necessary for the CDM to function and enforce the DRM protections.

The moment a browser (or OS) tries to put in technological measures to defend against the owner, your computer is not yours.

It's not really the job of browser vendors to make sure you can be a freeloading shithead is it?

It's not really the browser's job to defend other processes from your assault, now is it? We'd call that malware in any other context.

Anything other than that is freeloading off those of us who pay.

No offense, but the industries in question are making money hand over fist. No real loss is occurring.

Either you allow the CDM direct access to the OS so it can perform the check on its own, or you can provide an interface that can be trivially spoofed.

This is where I doubt that they can actually sandbox it. The CDM needs OS access so it can try and leverage nonsense like Windows' Protected Media Path. I'm not sure what they intend to do with the sandbox, realistically.

I still doubt that Firefox will, or can, do anything to protect the CDM.

Mozilla did not "oust" him. He stepped down after the wider community spoke up. This is being forced by a bunch of DRM happy corps (MS, Apple, Google) and their media industry buddies (Netflix, MPAA, et. al.)

It's important that a browser protect me and my rights on my system, not the business model of other DRM-happy corporations.

Does Firefox's architecture actually get in the way of users eventually pirating the content?

I doubt it, but it's likely that the CDM will attempt to check the Firefox binary and assert that the one loading it is signed by Mozilla and refuse to operate otherwise.

It's the CDM's job to fight off attack attempts against itself, not Firefox's. All Firefox will do is attempt to isolate the (undoubtedly security hole riddled) CDM and protect the end user from it - but given the closed source nature of the CDM this may not be possible.

It's already trivial to do that. What would "clearly marking them as security vulnerabilities" gain?