Ubuntu's "No Open Ports!" policy questioned by Avahi developer

[newbie2]

Lennart Poettering, developer of Avahi, discusses Ubuntu's "No Open Ports!" policy in his blog syndicated on Planet GNOME. That policy is supposed to create a more secure workstation after a default installation, but at the same time makes its usability and comfort for users go down considerably. Lennart questions the validity of the reasons behind that decision as far is Zeroconf/Avahi is concerned. Another blog, this time on www.kdedevelopers.org takes up that policy in relation to the crippling of CUPS's convenience features on a default Ubuntu installation and puts it into the nutshell "you can't use your system for printing, but at least it is super-secure".
http://lxer.com/module/newswire/view/65927/index.html

[Brunellus]

don't be a menace 2 ubuntu while drinkin ur juice n da hood.

This totally overstates the problem. Was he not aware that there were other ways of configuring CUPS on ubuntu other than using CUPS' webadmin interface?

[aysiu]

I've never found it to be an inconvenience. I do, however, find not having an immediate GUI for changing my slideshow screensaver's directory a major inconvenience. Why don't they address that instead?

I was able to set up my printer with a few simple clicks. Can't say the same for my screensaver...

[Brunellus]

this is essentially the Linux version of the windows troll. Let's face it, guys: if you can speak even semi-coherently about the advantages of one system over another, you are NOT an 'average' user. So don't let's speak for "average" users, k?

[kabus]

this is essentially the Linux version of the windows troll. Let's face it, guys: if you can speak even semi-coherently about the advantages of one system over another, you are NOT an 'average' user. So don't let's speak for "average" users, k?

If Poettering's criticism is so unreasonable why is there a long thread on ubuntu-devel discussing Zeroconf and possible changes to the no-open-ports policy?
Why shouldn't developers discuss the effects development decisions have on users?
Is anybody who criticises Ubuntu a troll?

[Brunellus]

If Poettering's criticism is so unreasonable why is there a long thread on ubuntu-devel discussing Zeroconf and possible changes to the no-open-ports policy?
Why shouldn't developers discuss the effects development decisions have on users?
Is anybody who criticises Ubuntu a troll?
It just seems rather tiresome, and perhaps I have a very hard time distinguishing it from the millions of "X is obviously broken about Ubuntu for average users" threads. Ubuntuforum fatigue setting in? *shrug*

[win_zik]

If Poettering's criticism is so unreasonable why is there a long thread on ubuntu-devel discussing Zeroconf and possible changes to the no-open-ports policy?
Why shouldn't developers discuss the effects development decisions have on users?
Is anybody who criticises Ubuntu a troll?

I agree, some people seem to be unable to take any criticism of Ubuntu, however well founded it might be.

The problem with what Ubuntu did with CUPS was not only that the web interface didn't work, in fact, there were many problems. And no, just because someone didn't encounter these problems doesn't mean they aren't there.

For reference and so that people who want can maybe address this in a more informed way:
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2117
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/1899
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2064
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2076
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2106
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2121
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2138
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2072
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/node/2077
http://www.kdedevelopers.org/blog/418