I appreciate the clarification! However, 1. the original comment seemed to be talking about a simple uncustomized frame not looking correct, which sounds like the GNOME problem. And 2. the article still seems to imply Wayland means no SSD, as far as I can tell, which to my knowledge as a general statement isn’t true.

Therefore, I apologize for misreading the main intention of the article, but I think there are multiple reasons why people might misread it. Perhaps some clarifications could help?

Basically, on any sane window manager no matter if Wayland or X11, you’ll get the same frame for all apps for free.

From all the big desktops it’s only GNOME that somehow decided server-side decorations weren’t a good idea implement, and now all Wayland apps have to hand-roll a hacky workaround. The “flat frameless window” look was Electron’s GNOME workaround. What the article is describing is a more elaborate GNOME workaround. On e.g. KDE, none of these problems existed in the first place.

This is a GNOME problem, not a Wayland problem. The article says “On X11, the window manager typically supplies a window’s title bar and frame decorations. But […] on Wayland, all you get back from the compositor is a plain rectangle.” which makes it sound like this is a Wayland problem, but this isn’t true.

Relevant article: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/you-the-problem-tpm2-solves.en.html

And if anybody thought TPM provides security: https://www.elevenforum.com/t/tpm-2-0-is-a-must-they-said-it-will-improve-windows-security-they-said.13222/ https://gist.github.com/osy/45e612345376a65c56d0678834535166 https://www.sophos.com/en-us/blog/serious-security-tpm-2-0-vulns-is-your-super-secure-data-at-risk https://www.covertswarm.com/post/how-secure-are-tpm-chips

Reader, you know what’s likely most secure? FOSS code, peer-reviewed and regularly patched.

I don’t get why one would trust security theater, aka TPM and secureboot.