Originally posted by Vim_User
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Fedora 21 To Evaluate Remote Journal Logging, 64-bit ARM Emulation
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostYou haven't understood the proposal at all.
What Mattias proposed was disabling the service and thus probably not installing the GUI by default.
It has nothing to do with not installing a GUI.
Originally posted by Mattias;Additionally, the set of zones that we currently expose is excessive and not user-friendly.
firewalld is a system level firewall and doesn't require any kind of frontend. The proposal is about disabling the service by default.
firewalld can have any kind of graphical frontends but those frontends are not part of any desktop environment and is just a distro tool.
Regarding it being a distro tool, i'm afraid I don't see the point.
Comment
-
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.
"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
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostYes, 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
Even if there is only one frontend, it still has nothing to do with GNOME as a desktop environment.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View PostI 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
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.
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.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostSo your rant against GNOME when the firewalld application (neither the service nor GUI has nothing to do with GNOME is pointless.
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostNonsense. 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?
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostIt seems that you just want to rant about a desktop environment even when the news story has nothing to do with said desktop environment.
Comment
-
Originally posted by liam View PostYeah, 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. .
Originally posted by liamSorry, I misspoke - I meant the workstation working group, not the Fedora board. .
- Josh Boyer (jwb) - kernel developer
- Matthias Clasen (mclasen) - GNOME developer, Red Hat
- Kalev Lember (kalev) - MINGW and GNOME packaging - Fedora volunteer
- Ryan Lerch (ryanlerch) - Web designer
- Jens Petersen (juhp) - I18N expert
- Christian Schaller (cschalle) - Red Hat manager
- Owen Taylor (otaylor) - GNOME developer, Red Hat
- Luk?? Tinkl (ltinkl) - KDE developer
- Christoph Wickert (cwickert) - XFCE and LXDE developer, Fedora volunteer
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.
Comment
Comment