On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:29 -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote: > On 07/10/2012 03:20 PM, Marc Deslauriers wrote: > > On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 15:11 -0400, Stéphane Graber wrote: > >> On 07/10/2012 03:06 PM, Ted Gould wrote: > >>> On Tue, 2012-07-10 at 14:48 -0400, Scott Kitterman wrote: > >>>> On Tuesday, July 10, 2012 02:41:35 PM Mathieu Trudel-Lapierre wrote: > >>>>> As for the actual change, it is limited to the > >>>>> /etc/NetworkManager/NetworkManager.conf file; to which the following > >>>>> will be added: > >>>>> > >>>>> [connectivity] > >>>>> uri=http://start.ubuntu.com/connectivity-check.html > >>>>> response=Lorem ipsum > >>>>> > >>>>> See the manual page for NetworkManager.conf(5) for the details of what > >>>>> these settings do. > >>>>> > >>>>> Please let me know if you have questions or think there are good > >>>>> reasons not to enable this feature. If there is no response by the end > >>>>> of the week, I'd like to proceed with a enabling this in Quantal and > >>>>> making sure it gets well tested. > >>>> > >>>> I think that a significant fraction of Ubuntu's user base is > >>>> (reasonably) very > >>>> sensitive about privacy issues. While this is no worse the the NTP > >>>> check that > >>>> already exists (that is controversial), I don't think it should be > >>>> enabled by > >>>> default. > >>> > >>> I think that for those who are concerned, this is trivial to disable. > >>> But, I think what happens for those who are, is that Ubuntu "does the > >>> right thing" by default. If you're at a hotel or other location that > >>> captures for a login page, you won't get your mail and apt and ... all > >>> downloading bogus stuff. > >>> > >>> --Ted > >> > >> There are other ways to detect such cases without having the machine > >> connect to an external service. > >> > >> Someone suggested on IRC to implement a doesnt-exist.ubuntu.com which is > >> essentially a record that Canonical would guarantee never to exist in > >> the ubuntu.com. zone. > >> > >> If you can resolve or even access that host, then you are behind some > >> kind of captive portal/proxy. > >> > > > > That only works if the portal/proxy spoofs DNS. Some don't do that. > > > > Seriously, there's a whole slew of software on the desktop that connects > > to the Internet regularly, I don't see how this is any different. It's > > easy to change for paranoid people, and enabling it would make Ubuntu so > > much better for a majority of users. > > > > Marc. > > Just to clarify, I'm not at all against that change, being one of the > ones who asked Mathieu to put that on this todo after looking at 2-3 > implementation of that check in ubiquity alone that I'd love to get rid off. > > I'm not sure I like the idea of having NM poke that same address every 5 > minutes as it sounds like a pretty easy way for anyone to accurately > count the number of Ubuntu machines currently running in any given network.
Meh, there are countless other things that can be used for that currently...apt requests, ntp, browser user-agent strings, etc. > > Sadly it's not how it was implemented in Network Manager, but I think > I'd have preferred to have this check be exposed over DBUS so that > applications like ubiquity can use that call to query the connectivity > on demand. I'm confused...Network Manager already exposes connectivity information over dbus, and that's what apps are supposed to use... > This would also have allowed to extend the check to work with other > protocols, letting the client application query for a specific host and > protocol if it wants to (with the default being whatever is defined in > NetworkManager.conf). Well, the idea is apps ask Network Manager, so it can be configured in a central location, and not have every app try and override the default... Marc. -- ubuntu-devel mailing list [email protected] Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-devel
