On Wed, 2005-11-16 at 20:35 -0800, JJZolx wrote: > kdf Wrote: > > i believe the rational behind requiring the remote is one of security. > > Access to network settings is something that not all users want to be > > available to anyone with web access. > I don't quite follow this. I thought he was just asking why the > network setup wasn't in the settings section of the remote interface, > not for control from the web interface.
Perhaps he has something of a real request, but with the attitude, its is hard to see any developer bothering to read his trolls. In general, it is bad security design to allow one computer (the server) to change the network setup of another computer (the SqueezeBox) without a positive action on the user of the second computer (the SqueezeBox) in this case. That some software vendors put in weak designs is not a good reason for open source folks to do so. The source is there if someone really needs it, but it is bad design. Especially when it is just a question of supporting a guy's favorite remote when he shows this much disdain for the development community. > I wonder if there isn't another way of accomplishing the same thing in > the firmware - say by recognizing N presses in quick succession as > equivalent, or maybe some odd button sequence. Could well be, but I'm sure not going to look for it to support Mister Ego. On to more pleasant topics. -- Pat Farrell http://www.pfarrell.com _______________________________________________ Discuss mailing list [email protected] http://lists.slimdevices.com/lists/listinfo/discuss
