Am 09.12.2014 um 20:16 schrieb Robert Marcano:
On 12/09/2014 02:19 PM, Reindl Harald wrote:Am 09.12.2014 um 19:45 schrieb Bastien Nocera:Richard Hughes wrote:So do I! I'm a developer, which spin do I use so that the firewall doesn't get in my way? We can't develop a *product* based around what you specifically want, not me, nor anyone else on this list.If you're a developer, surely you know what a port is and can make a few clicks in firewall-config or system-config-firewall to open it! A "developer" who can't even figure that out is a HORRIBLE developer!Still waiting for that answer about the rygel use case. You'll see how much of a HORRIBLE setup this can be...wrong question if there is a software which changes it's listening port randomly than fix that broken by design software instead ruin the firewall there is *no single* technical reason to chose a random portI don't like the new default but I say that there are reasons for that. Example: two simultaneous users on differente sessions want to share music. The solution, define a port range for the default rygel installation, and the firewall UI should know the ranges Rygel uses
fine, than we are on a defined range of saying around 10 ports bad enough but a different story to 1024-65535 blindly and the point: even that range has to be confiremd by the usernot everybody is using that software, i don't use it because i have "mediathomb" on a fixed port - so somebody should tell me *a single* reason why a random software is the excuse to poke holes in *my* default security
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature
-- devel mailing list devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/devel Fedora Code of Conduct: http://fedoraproject.org/code-of-conduct
