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 port
I 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 user
not 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