On to, 2011-03-03 at 11:54 +0100, Klaus Ethgen wrote: > Am Do den 3. Mär 2011 um 11:25 schrieb Tollef Fog Heen: > > Then just don't use it? Nobody is forcing you to. > [...] > > | And even if you not care about, then that functionality should be > > | explicit configured and not per default. > > > > That makes it much less useful. On the other hand, it's not like your > > system will suddenly go around connecting to random services just > > because it sees them announced. > > So you contradict yourself within two paragraphs. It makes it less > useful to enable it only on manual intervention (say, it should be > enabled automatic) but on the other hand you say that nobody is forcing > me (or others) to use it. How do that plays together?
I don't see a contradiction between "nobody is forced to use zeroconf" and "zeroconf is less useful if it has to be enabled manually". The fact that zeroconf is enabled by default on the GNOME desktop does not make it mandatory for everyone to use. (Yes, it would be nice if there were an easy way to disable it.) However, could we please end the FUDfest? This thread seems to be quite unconstructive, with unspecific claims of security problems, unwarranted slurs on users based on their operating system, and accusations on Debian developer's attitudes. If there is an actual problem, explain what it is, and suggest a solution. Be specific. Avoid hyperbole and vague generalities. Do not insult. Write few mails, but put effort into each one. If others don't agree with you, possibly you are unclear and they are not stupid or evil: rephrase and expand and ask questions, and don't get frustrated. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-devel-requ...@lists.debian.org with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org Archive: http://lists.debian.org/1299151335.2561.17.camel@tacticus
