sshd by default -> no [Was: Runlevel Configuration in g-s-t]
dingo at coco2.arach.net.au
Sun Sep 19 09:09:17 UTC 2004
Jeff Waugh wrote:
>>It may not be necessary _for you_, but your judging my requirements is
>We're not basing these decisions on our own preferences, we're basing them
>on the greatest common factor of user needs. sshd simply isn't required by
>most classes of users in a default desktop system. We make it very easy to
>install. Thus, we easily satisfy two classes, while keeping our default
>configuration simple and sane. We, as technical users, may prefer to have
>sshd on every machine, but that is not the case for most desktop users.
How do you see maintenance being done in a corporate environment?
>Installing sshd is as simple as 'sudo apt-get install openssh-server' once
>you've installed the system. It would be the same number of commands (one)
>to enable it even if it were installed already (because we would not enable
>it by default, as per no-listening policy). Plus, it'll be even easier to
>install in HoaryHedgehog.
In an Anaconda-using distro I simply list the package in the appropriate
section, maybe a script in the post-install section and it's done.
Don't need to insert CD, or type more commands or anything. At present,
there is no simple automatic way to adjust the package selection in Ubuntu.
Rob annoyed me because he contradicted a point I made. I justfied my
preference with a concrete example, He simply poopooed the idea.
If you have surveys of your market that is going to actually pay you
money that reveal remote maintenance is unimportant, that's fine. Ship
that way. It's not my feeling, but I have not done surveys.
I worked a while in a bank. I had NT on my desktop. When it didn't work
(several times) the network bloke had to come to my computer and click
endlessly with the mouse. With remote admin facilities he could probably
have done it from his desk, in less time that it took to come to me.
More information about the ubuntu-users