Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 17 of 17

Thread: Fedora 21 To Evaluate Remote Journal Logging, 64-bit ARM Emulation

  1. #11

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Vim_User View Post
    Huh? I can't think of ways to make that proposal more clear:This clearly states that firewalld will be disabled by default because it lacks desktop integration. How can that have nothing to do with with the GUI?
    Who said it is not about integration? I am merely pointing out that it is not a GNOME decision but a Fedora decision and the implementation is not merely installing a GUI but disabling a system level service.

  2. #12
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    You haven't understood the proposal at all.
    Hmm, the proposal comes to disabling firewalld.service. I've already said as much. Here, I'll quote:

    What Mattias proposed was disabling the service and thus probably not installing the GUI by default.
    So, to claim I don't "understand the proposal at all" was either an attempt to discredit me or carelessly expressed hyperbole which was quite impolite, considering the phrasing.


    It has nothing to do with not installing a GUI.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mattias;
    Additionally, the set of zones that we currently expose is excessive and not user-friendly.
    To my knowledge, the zones are exposed through both the network manager GUI and firewalld gui (both installed by default, I believe). Implicitly this is addressing those GUIs. Even if not, it is addressing the USER EXPOSED zone manipulation. Please, explain how this has NOTHING to do with a GUI(i'm not sure what you mean by "installed" since firewalld/nm gui seems to be part of the default install, and has been for a few releases so this proposal).


    firewalld is a system level firewall and doesn't require any kind of frontend. The proposal is about disabling the service by default.
    I don't disagree. My original post was directed at the way the proposal was phrased. The implication being the GUI is too complicated (reference the Mattias quote above). The alternative interpretation would be that manually editing zones is too complicated (presumably through iptables).

    firewalld can have any kind of graphical frontends but those frontends are not part of any desktop environment and is just a distro tool.
    In principal it can have any kind of frontend (or nothing more than the text files describing the iptables rules) but in fact we have the one GUI which has been included by default for awhile now.
    Regarding it being a distro tool, i'm afraid I don't see the point.

  3. #13

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post

    In principal it can have any kind of frontend (or nothing more than the text files describing the iptables rules) but in fact we have the one GUI which has been included by default for awhile now.
    Regarding it being a distro tool, i'm afraid I don't see the point.
    Yes, I do think you keep missing the point and I will make one last attempt. Even if there is only one frontend, it still has nothing to do with GNOME as a desktop environment. Anyone can write a frontend in GTK or a network manager plugin. You wrote

    "So, because gnome hasn't designed the interface for firewalld the solution is to disable it until they do create one?"

    "Sorry for the rant. I find myself becoming less generous towards gnome the more I hear about them."

    I was replying to these sort of statements. The responsibility for the frontend is with the distribution developing the underlying tool (ie) Fedora. If they want to expose zones in a better way in the UI, they very well can. It is just a question of resources. It is not like Fedora doesn't drive a bunch of GNOME development ex: GNOME Software

  4. #14
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Yes, I do think you keep missing the point and I will make one last attempt. Even if there is only one frontend, it still has nothing to do with GNOME as a desktop environment. Anyone can write a frontend in GTK or a network manager plugin. You wrote

    "So, because gnome hasn't designed the interface for firewalld the solution is to disable it until they do create one?"

    "Sorry for the rant. I find myself becoming less generous towards gnome the more I hear about them."

    I was replying to these sort of statements. The responsibility for the frontend is with the distribution developing the underlying tool (ie) Fedora. If they want to expose zones in a better way in the UI, they very well can. It is just a question of resources. It is not like Fedora doesn't drive a bunch of GNOME development ex: GNOME Software
    OK, so it looks like you can't get past my rant. You seem to consistently misread (or ignore) sections of response and focus on earlier statements but without making it clear it is those statements you are concerned about. Nevertheless I'll address your points.

    Even if there is only one frontend, it still has nothing to do with GNOME as a desktop environment.
    I don't know how to parse that as saying anything other than the GUI isn't affiliated with the gnome project. That's a point I never argued, and I can only surmise you mentioned it because you are explaining why the gnome developers want to get rid of it.

    For your last paragraph, again, I parse that as saying: this is a distro decision not a gnome one, which is true. But the workstation, and fedora desktop in general, is a gnome-lead project. Six of the twelve members on the board are gnome affiliated. I'm not willing to blind myself to these facts.

  5. #15

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    I don't know how to parse that as saying anything other than the GUI isn't affiliated with the gnome project. That's a point I never argued
    So your rant against GNOME when the firewalld application (neither the service nor GUI has nothing to do with GNOME is pointless.

    For your last paragraph, again, I parse that as saying: this is a distro decision not a gnome one, which is true. But the workstation, and fedora desktop in general, is a gnome-lead project. Six of the twelve members on the board are gnome affiliated. I'm not willing to blind myself to these facts.
    Nonsense. You are just digging yourself further into a rathole. First of all, Fedora Board doesn't have twelve members. It has nine and none of them are really affliated with GNOME at all. Where are you getting your so called "facts" from?

    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Board

    It seems that you just want to rant about a desktop environment even when the news story has nothing to do with said desktop environment.

  6. #16
    Join Date
    Jan 2009
    Posts
    1,294

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    So your rant against GNOME when the firewalld application (neither the service nor GUI has nothing to do with GNOME is pointless.
    Yeah, it was admittedly a rant, but saying it has nothing to do with GNOME is specious. The proposal is about the fedora workstation, which is based on GNOME; the proposal is coming from a GNOME developer who is also on the workstation WG; and the proposal is specifically motivated by a lack of desktop (GNOME) integration.

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    Nonsense. You are just digging yourself further into a rathole. First of all, Fedora Board doesn't have twelve members. It has nine and none of them are really affliated with GNOME at all. Where are you getting your so called "facts" from?
    Sorry, I misspoke - I meant the workstation working group, not the Fedora board.

    Quote Originally Posted by RahulSundaram View Post
    It seems that you just want to rant about a desktop environment even when the news story has nothing to do with said desktop environment.
    It seems like you just want to stick your head in the sand about the influence that GNOME and GNOME developers have on the Fedora desktop.

  7. #17

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by liam View Post
    Yeah, it was admittedly a rant, but saying it has nothing to do with GNOME is specious. The proposal is about the fedora workstation, which is based on GNOME; the proposal is coming from a GNOME developer who is also on the workstation WG; and the proposal is specifically motivated by a lack of desktop (GNOME) integration. .
    Yes, it is about desktop integration it has nothing to do with GNOME as a project since the integration is driven by Fedora. Blaming it on GNOME is beyond silly.

    Quote Originally Posted by liam
    Sorry, I misspoke - I meant the workstation working group, not the Fedora board. .
    Of course I checked that as well. This still doesn't add up. Workstation working group has 9 members. Let's look at their affliations. Hardly a super majority as you claim. Remember these are the people who volunteered to be part of the working group. There is nothing stopping others from getting involved if they wish to.

    https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Workstation





    Quote Originally Posted by liam

    It seems like you just want to stick your head in the sand about the influence that GNOME and GNOME developers have on the Fedora desktop.
    Of course, GNOME developers have influence because guess what, GNOME *is* the Fedora default desktop but the problem I have with your rant is that it doesn't make much sense.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •