"Workstation" Product defaults to wide-open firewall
lists at petetravis.com
Tue Dec 9 18:16:54 UTC 2014
On Dec 9, 2014 10:54 AM, "Stephen John Smoogen" <smooge at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 9 December 2014 at 10:46, Alec Leamas <leamas.alec at gmail.com> wrote:
>> On 09/12/14 18:39, Stephen John Smoogen wrote:
>>> On 9 December 2014 at 10:27, Chris Murphy <lists at colorremedies.com
>>> OS X's firewall is disabled by default. Where's the outcry?
>>> It was a long time ago and it basically caused it to have extra
>>> configurations before it could be 'ok'd' for various corporate and
>>> government sites. Not something Fedora Workstation is aiming at.
>> Hm... has anyone a feeling about how such entities would react to the
current firewall defaults (open for user ports)? Do we care?
> Same way, and we do not care for this release. Later releases can be
dealt with when they come about.
> In the end, this is a tempest in a teapot. The release is out and it is
done. I don't like it, but my yelling and screaming and spitting in an
autistic rage did not fix it so its time to move on so that is what I am
going to do.
> Stephen J Smoogen.
This discussion would resolve quickly if we had video proof of your antics,
But seriously, there's an implication in this thread that there will be
work happening to give stuff a path to ask for an open port. Where can we
follow along with that effort? Starting with, say, how I might change
`nikola runserver` or `django-admin runserver` to ask for the port, and
ending with the resulting UI that asks me for approval?
If we want actual progress, it doesn't happen because of controversial
compromises, or mailing list flamewars, or even GNOME-specific UI responses
to dbus signals. We're all here talking about it - let's talk about what
would be ideal, and start pointing at the code to make it work.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the devel