[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: avahi-daemon

On Sat, Mar 04, 2006 at 10:31:02AM +0100, Loïc Minier wrote:
> > And for the same thing, why would a typical desktop machine provide users
> > to share even files! My desktop system at home (and my parent's and my
> > uncle's and whatnot) are completely stand-alone desktop systems, connected to
> > the Internet, with no LAN. They only need to talk to their (serial or USB
> > connected) printer, that's all!
>  Fine, and perhaps you don't even need music sharing on them, but does it
>  still automounts filesystems plugged in USB?  :)

It's not the same case, not at all. USB filemounts require local access to
the system, connecting to a remote daemon does not. There's no paralellism
here even if you want to force it.

>  One can't know in advance what uses a system is for, I believe people
>  installing Rhythmbox want to be able to share music by default
>  (easily).  You're free to believe the contrary, it's a matter of

The truth is that people don't get rhythmbox because they installed it
explicitly, they get rhythmbox because they installed 'gnome'. It's just not
the same thing.

And also:

 Rhythmbox is a very easy to use music playing and management program
 which supports a wide range of audio formats (including mp3 and ogg).
 The current version also supports Internet Radio, iPod integration,
 Audio CD burning, and metadata editing.

There's *nothing* in that description (which is Rhythmbox' package) that
implies that Rhythmbox provides music sharing capabilities. Is there?

>  opinion, I gave numerous arguments to my position already, and don't
>  want to talk in loops any further.  You don't want it?  Don't install
>  it or configure it the way you like.

It's not that I don't want it (I don't) I don't want a GNOME install to have
it. I don't want user *users* to have a music sharing application they will
certainly not need.

> > I'm surprised that the over-bloat of Windows' desktop is now considered to be
> > the good way of doing things.
>  I'd rather have drawn a parallel with Apple software, such as MacOSX,
>  or their Wifi APs.  Please have a look at their traffic and open ports
>  next time you get near one of them.

Hah! That made me laugh for a bit. Please take a look at MacOS X security
record, and their "plug and play" simplicity.

For further reference I suggest you read:

"In its default configuration shell commands are executed simply by
visting a web site - no user interaction required."

(take a look at the 'automount' and 'Safari' issues)

Yes, plug and play is all fine and dandy, but if you take it to the extreme
you get bitten by these bugs. I wouldn't be surprised if people taking the
same route (hundreds of developers yelling "plug & play! plug & play!") led
the systems they developed to the same consequences (remote exploitable bugs
and worms).



Attachment: signature.asc
Description: Digital signature

Reply to: