UFW Ports Open Option

[cscs]

@Purgenta

My point is not that the user assumes that terminal commands are the only way, my point is that out-of-the-box, these GUI tools aren’t present, which overcomplicates things for the user. My fault, I didn’t communicate that properly.

The installer has a software selection section in which ..

Hm just looking again it is interesting to find that it appears they have removed ufw-extras (I mentioned above it opens many ports by default and I objected to its previous automatic inclusion) and just about everything else it seems besides ufw itself.

GUFW is kinda garbage with broken desktop files (for years!).

So the best option is the plasma thing but thats of course only for plasma.

Anyways that is to say I was going to correct this but no apparently its just ufw alone as the default now. plasma-firewall works as a graphical frontend but it is only listed under Plasma so might easily be missed.

@Purgenta

It is said within the quote you provided: “a custom toolchain that streamlines the user experience for both new and experienced users.”. It’s also very clear that the developers adhere to this. This is seen with the inclusion of pre-installed software like the CachyOS Hello app, Shelly, the CachyOS Kernel Manager, and the Cachy-Update app.

Shelly is not official, a lot of the things you mentioned are quick or copies that provide specific functions, and still that quote does not say what you appear to think it is saying.

A toolchain “streamlining” an “experience” is not equal to “strives to make it dead-simple for newcomers to linux with a fancy GUI for every purpose and a nanny OS” or whatever else. I am not sure I even agree with the statement itself because they arent making Arch any more streamlined. One could very well argue the opposite. I also am not sure there are any native-english speakers involved so that could be related as well.

Anyways I am not aware of “make Arch easy to use for everyone” was, or is, part of the main mission here. I am aware of it being a performance-oriented Arch-derivative. Which means its weirder/more-temperamental/geekier than Arch.

@Purgenta

No offense at all, but I feel as though if that’s the case, then it may be quite difficult for you to understand the importance of GUIs to most users. Even those who frequently use the terminal prefer a GUI. It’s simpler having buttons do things for you, rather than having to venture into a wiki or somewhere else on the internet to find a command to do so.

Its more like I never liked the original this was a fork of.
And then I dont agree with the choices made for a fair portion of what is included.
And even for those I have some disagreements with how.
( The DNS being just one recent example of something that, even if it should exist at all, should probably exist differently. )
Not that I cannot possibly conceive of the usefulness of graphical buttons.

@Purgenta

However, setting that up in the terminal would probably be more complex than having a simple button to do that. For a distro that has a custom toolchain to streamline the experience for new users, it would be a bit contradictory to willingly allow this, despite the complexity it adds to setting things up.

I am not sure I understood this thought.
Whether terminal or button both are ‘allowed’ and would ostensibly achieve the same thing. The only difference being that currently no such button exists .. while the terminal commands function anywhere the supporting software is installed.

Heck I dont even like ufw itself and prefer/use just nftables.

I am not sure we are ‘arguing’ over the same things here so let me reiterate;

We probably do not need all of the GUI welcome stuff we do have, we probably dont need to be using the hello/welcome base, and if we want something like cachyos-tweaks then that should be made. Preferably with current QT and not dead GTK (but again thats what the base is/was so thats what was inherited).
Now that GUI might include things but I would wager a certain portion of what is currently in Hello should not be.
Of those that should exist, including new ones, they may benefit from more preferred implementations.
If firewall counts in this arena instead of or alongside initial package selection we might still avoid using ufw entirely.
Does ‘open firewall ports’ count as one of these possibilities?
Maybe per-application?
Does sunshine count for that?
And if we do have an ‘open ports’ button of any kind it should probably by more thoughtful than simply open everywhere all the time, as already discussed.

Maybe the totality of that is a bit out of scope but there are a half dozen or so reasons why I do not exactly relish the idea of time put into more buttons for hello that do things in suboptimal ways.