On Thu, 28 Jul 2005 02:17:06 +0200 Martin Baehr wrote: > On Wed, Jul 27, 2005 at 10:42:47PM +1200, Michael JasonSmith wrote: > > If one wanted that, then one would start an X-session on a different > > virtual terminal of one's machine. Not that this one can figure out how > > to do that, as Fedora has rather strict security that removes the > > network from the network-transparent windowing system! > > what is wrong with choosing a secure default? if you need networking, > turn it on. for those that are not aware about it, it is better turned > off. otherwise someone might coax them into running xhost +, turning > every access controll off and allowing anyone from remote to access > theur desktop. do you want that? with networking turned off, no trick > (short of getting them to actually turn networking on) will put the > person at risk. isn't that what we want? > > for a secure default no port should be open, unless the user explicitly > requested it. what's with all those complaints about windows shipping > with so many services open?
I agree, people were critical when distros shipped with many service turned on. We cannot have it both ways. Although X11 is network friendly, most people in fact have very little use for this. The situation of server + X terminals is far less common than standalone X servers. (ie connecting only to clients on the same box). > > greetings, martin. > -- > cooperative communication with sTeam - caudium, pike, roxen and unix > offering: programming, training and administration - anywhere in the world > -- > pike programmer travelling and working in europe open-steam.org > unix system- bahai.or.at iaeste.(tuwien.ac|or).at > administrator (caudium|gotpike).org is.schon.org > Martin Bähr http://www.iaeste.or.at/~mbaehr/ Nick Rout
