On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 1:01 PM Chris Murphy <lists@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > On Wed, Aug 28, 2019 at 9:36 AM John Harris <johnmh@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: > > > Essentially disabling the firewall falls under having a "bad design for > > everyone else". Disabling the firewall is something that could be considered > > hostile to the user. > > This is hyperbole, and turning up the volume isn't going to make > anyone go "oh, ok, now I see your point, it's hostile and we don't > want to do that, let's change it" as if literally everyone reading > this is some kind of moron. > [SNIP] This isn't hyperbole. This is disagreement. Nobody called anybody a moron. John simply highlighted Jiri's statement of "bad design for everyone else" as subjective, and there are those who can see it differently; there those of us that consider the current status quo to be of "bad design", possibly even hostile. This is just a difference of opinion, because "bad design" is subjective. Because it is subjective, I don't think this is going to be solved easily (consensus gathering is hard). Right now... from the participants... it seems pretty split. I wish we had a way of polling the community to get a sense of the community consensus on the matter. For me, the biggest thing that upsets me is that: 1) it seems FESCo's previous rejection of the change proposal seems to have been ignored in spirit, even though it wasn't technically ignored, and 2) the Workstation WG has not only taken no action in response to the FESCo statement of trust at the conclusion of our last lengthy discussion on this matter, it has been explicitly stated in this thread that they have never had any intention of doing anything further, even though that was FESCo's clear expectation. To me, these two facts demonstrate a complete lack of respect for the community and its elected representatives. The appearance is that the WG will do what it wants no matter what the community thinks (even if the community consensus were on their side... which is still uncertain). It also makes it appear that Fedora governance is weak... a puppet to the whims of those who don't necessarily represent the whole community. This seems like a very unhealthy state for Fedora to be in right now. I'm just disappointed in how this has played out. At the very least, it'd be nice if anaconda had an option to select the default firewalld zone during installation, so users had a choice to select "public - more secure, but some firewall configuration changes may need to made to allow some applications to work" or "trusted - more open, but may expose your computer's applications to malicious actors on the networks you connect to" with a comment that "you can change this later; see <doc url>". Then, you don't need to worry about what the default is... nobody could claim surprise by the setting. If this option existed during installation in an obvious way during network setup, I wouldn't even care if "trusted" was selected by default, because changing it would be simple. _______________________________________________ devel mailing list -- devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe send an email to devel-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Fedora Code of Conduct: https://docs.fedoraproject.org/en-US/project/code-of-conduct/ List Guidelines: https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines List Archives: https://lists.fedoraproject.org/archives/list/devel@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
