Am Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:31:42 +0000 schrieb devel-request@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx: > Message: 7 > Date: Mon, 08 Dec 2014 23:54:30 +0100 > From: Alec Leamas <leamas.alec@xxxxxxxxx> > To: Development discussions related to Fedora > <devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> > Subject: Re: "Workstation" Product defaults to wide-open firewall > Message-ID: <54862C26.9020009@xxxxxxxxx> > Content-Type: text/plain; charset=utf-8; format=flowed > > On 08/12/14 16:33, Matthew Miller wrote: > > On Mon, Dec 08, 2014 at 02:31:58PM +0000, Ian Malone wrote: > >> There are three products: workstation, server, cloud. Workstation is > >> the one for desktop use. That leaves server to aim for the traditional > >> fedora user base, since cloud is (understandably) a very different > >> thing. So if you want a desktop system with a security focus where do > >> you look now? > > > > So, it's important to understand — here on the devel list, certainly — > > that these three are part of a marketing strategy, and in order for > > such a thing to be effective and not just fluffy talk, it does involve > > technical changes to match the plan. > > I have no problems with this. However, besides the technical/marketing > trade-offs, here is also a process issue. Obviously, a lot of people > were surprised by Kevin's finding that the workstation firewall was > default open for ports > 1024. > > Tracking this issue back we find [1] where the workstation group tried > to just disable the firewall. This started some threads. FESCO rejected > the change request. > > For me, this issue then disappeared from my radar. It seems that after > FESCO turned down the wide-open system option the discussion was in the > workstation list, where they ended up opening all user ports (?) and > implemented this. > > When a lot of people are surprised, isn't that a sign of a process > problem? Should we try to avoid surprises like this?. If so, how? > > (I'm not trying to be argumentative or to blame anyone; if my pidgin > English gives that impression please ignore it). > > > Cheers! > > --alec Is it possisible that the real reason for this decision from gnome was to fix a long outstanding bug in gnome-user-share? see https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=179187#c26 https://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=336201#c6 realy amazing how gnome fix that bug ;) Wolfgang -- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
