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: http://isc.sans.org/diary.php?storyid=1138 "In its default configuration shell commands are executed simply by visting a web site - no user interaction required." http://www.securityfocus.com/brief/152 and http://docs.info.apple.com/article.html?artnum=303382 (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). Regards Javier
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature