Is it possible to have a release without remote ability?

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

I would like to ask, knowing it is probably not practical, if it is possible to have a release or beta or other version of Emby that does not have all the remote access bloat included. I use Emby every day and I have two servers (Beta and release) but I never use and have no reason to use the remote access stuff. There are also a lot of other features that I never use but are still in the program and take up space on my computers.

I know a LOT of people use and like the features, like remote access, that I consider little more than garbage but I think it would be good to have an Emby install that left some or all of those on the cutting room floor. If it is impossible just say so and, if it is just that the developers do not see the need, then say that as well. 

This is probably not popular enough to ever get implemented but I thought to post in the feature request forum just in case it would be advantageous to some and enough people want it to be worth the effort it would entail. 

This is something I do not need but it is something that I would find to be a good feature. 

If it is not something the developers are interested in then could we at least default the "allow remote access" to NO on a new install. It seems that a new user could be compromised by not noticing that remote access was automagically ON during a new install. 
With all the security features for people that use remote access I would think that defaulting it to NO would have no downside and the upside of not having to turn it off for every new install that does not want remote access.

[Sammy 790]

Being able to access Emby remotely is certainly not garbage.

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

17 minutes ago, Sammy said:

Being able to access Emby remotely is certainly not garbage.

It is for those of us that do not and have no desire to use it.

[Luke 42077]

Remote access isn't specifically built into Emby. What's built in is general network access, and it's the same functions whether the client is on the LAN or WAN.

It's really your router's port forwarding feature that is really doing the networking part of it.

[Neminem 1518]

Jep people should by now, know to disable UPnP in there routers.

Its a huge security risk, when enabled.

Rough software can enable access to your home / lan network.

 

And without that enabled Emby can't open access to your home / lan network.

Further more Emby askes to open ports for you during installation, as an option, as you pointed out.

But stupid people, just click next on everything, not reading the text.

You clearly read the text.

But if your router has this turned off, emby can't.

 

I will say NOT a emby problem...

Router owner problem, secure you network. 

Edited November 22, 2024 by Neminem

[Happy2Play 9780]

True but still believe Remote access should be an option on the installer and not just enabled by default on installation.

As you have Port Mapper but not Remote access option installation.

[Neminem 1518]

38 minutes ago, Neminem said:

But stupid people, just click next on everything, not reading the text.

And my point again !!

[Neminem 1518]

I agree with this, it should be a opt in, not an opt out.

10 minutes ago, Happy2Play said:

True but still believe Remote access should be an option on the installer and not just enabled by default on installation.

 

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

If the option is enabled by default the a large minority of people will just click through leaving their Emby installation vulnerable to hackers or just surprise attempts. 

Also expecting the users to know to turn off UPnP or to even know how is beyond foolish and approaching dangerous. Turning UPnP off or on is not something Emby can or should do but making remote access default to off is something they can and should do.  

It would be easy for Emby to change the default for new installs. It would help to protect users and also Emby who could be found libel if the user does not know how to protect themselves.

Personally, I care little about the default as I know how to protect myself. Also the installs I do for friends are OK. But I have had to help several people that did their own install after hearing about Emby from me and my friends. With only one exception every body I had to help had not turned off remote access. They all said the did not see or understand what the option meant. 

If you are going to allow just anybody to download and install Emby then you need to provide reasonable protection and not assume that everyone is computer literate at all.

Remember that most regular people use computers but they do not understand them. Just like most people use math but they do not understand it.

I still think that there should be an Emby download option with all remote access features disabled but simply defaulting remote access to off would be a HUGE step toward user friendliness. 

[TMCsw 249]

37 minutes ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

making remote access default to off is something they can and should do.  

Agree...

5 hours ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

There are also a lot of other features that I never use but are still in the program and take up space on my computers.

The windows version (7z) is only ~128 MB...compared to how many TB of media do you have?

If your worried about bloat on your system then get rid of the biggest one WINDOWS install a headless version of Linux (or one with a lightweight desktop).

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

10 minutes ago, TMCsw said:

Agree...

The windows version (7z) is only ~128 MB...compared to how many TB of media do you have?

If your worried about bloat on your system then get rid of the biggest one WINDOWS install a headless version of Linux (or one with a lightweight desktop).

If you actually read this thread you would find that it is not me that I want this feature for. I have only done six or seven full installs for me in the last ten years or so and I run two servers. I do, however perform many installs for friends and they would not have any interest in Linux at all. It is too hard for them to use.

"Bloat" was simply a simple word to describe some of the useless features, for me, that Emby includes in their software. As far as your suggestion about Linux I tried it and actually got pretty good using it BUT it lacks several utilities I use and need like Drivepool to name one. I have not, at least yet, seen a reliable and simple to use drive pooling utility to use under Linux. I just want to reduce problems for the people I help with Emby. 

Linux is NOT user friendly and I cannot try to force my friends to use an operating system as user unfriendly as Linux. 
I do not need this feature for me. I need it for my friends and many of them have no clue about Linux. 

[TMCsw 249]

1 hour ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

If you actually read this thread

I did read the entire tread and I simply agreed with what others (and you) later said about remote access being off by default.

My main point was that the size of the emby binaries for that feature and other features that you don’t need/want is trivial compared to the OS it’s self.

How would emby achieve this (I believe you have some coding background?) There are currently 90+ emby installers should they maintain 90+ more for a lite version of each? What features would be included? Or should they redesign the main executable to install/load this stuff al-a-cart for each individual's needs, just to save a few MB’s on today’s multi TB systems?

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

1 hour ago, TMCsw said:

I did read the entire tread and I simply agreed with what others (and you) later said about remote access being off by default.

My main point was that the size of the emby binaries for that feature and other features that you don’t need/want is trivial compared to the OS it’s self.

How would emby achieve this (I believe you have some coding background?) There are currently 90+ emby installers should they maintain 90+ more for a lite version of each? What features would be included? Or should they redesign the main executable to install/load this stuff al-a-cart for each individual's needs, just to save a few MB’s on today’s multi TB systems?

I really don't care much about the "how." That is up to Emby. If it is impossible or too hard for Emby to do then that is how it is. 

I simply asked for a feature and stated that if it was impossible then it was impossible. The only really important part is that remote access should be defaulted to off not on. I just asked and i will accept what Emby decides for the rest. 

But as far as "how" goes. Most systems i have ever worked with allow for conditional compiles and once set all that is required is to set some scripts that have "yes" "no" flags for various sections and proceed from their. That is the remote access sections can either be enabled or disabled by flags set in compiler scripts. Of course I can conceive of coding methods that actually makes that harder than altering the code itself and, if that is the case, then Emby should just implement to remote access to default to off. 

I care but i do not really care enough to fight to get the striped down versions included. 

[darkassassin07 652]

I don't think you even know what you're asking for...

 

The only difference between 'remote' access and 'local' access is whether or not you've forwarded a port on your router, if the system is even behind NAT (which it will be unless you've rented a VPS).

There's nothing explicitly enabling/disabling remote access besides maybe UPNP which should be off by default for any service. There's nothing for Emby to change here.

At most, Emby could remove a few options displayed for you in the settings pages, but really this would just create confusion over which release users should use and how to switch between them. In term of storage space, we're talking about a handful of megabytes at most. Hardly worth time/energy for anyone.

 

 

In short; what specifically are you actually wanting changed (don't generalize with terms like 'bloat'), and why should Emby devote time+effort into making (and maintaining) an entirely separate branch of releases to make it happen, knowing how much they already have to do?

Edited November 23, 2024 by darkassassin07

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

4 minutes ago, darkassassin07 said:

I don't think you even know what you're asking for...

 

The only difference between 'remote' access and 'local' access is whether or not you've forwarded a port on your router, if the system is even behind NAT (which it will be unless you've rented a VPS).

There's nothing explicitly enabling/disabling remote access besides maybe UPNP which should be off by default for any service. There's nothing for Emby to change here.

At most, Emby could remove a few options displayed for you in the settings pages, but really this would just create confusion over which release users should use and how to switch between them. In term of storage space, we're talking about a handful of megabytes at most. Hardly worth time/energy for anyone.

 

 

In short; what specifically are you actually wanting changed (don't generalize with terms like 'bloat'), and why should Emby devote time+effort into making (and maintaining) an entirely separate branch of releases to make it happen, knowing how much they already have to do?

I have said that i want remote access disabled by default.

The rest of what i asked for is pretty clear in that I would like there to be a separate compile for "has the ability for remote access" and "does not have the ability for remote access." 
But i have been informed that it is hard/impossible to do that so, at a minimum, Emby should default "remote access" to off.

As far as saying that I don't know what I am asking for I believe you need to refresh your reading comprehension and reread this thread.  

[darkassassin07 652]

14 minutes ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

at a minimum, Emby should default "remote access" to off.

That's exactly my point; there's no such thing as 'defaulting remote access to off'.

Emby is a server application accessed over a network. There is NO distinction between 'remote' and 'local', it's all just network access. How you configure the network emby server is attached to determines whether you have 'remote' access or not; not anything emby does or does not provide.

If anything emby would have to build in additional functionality to reject connections that don't originate from the local network; which could then still be bypassed fairly easily.

 

 

You're asking embys developers to engage in a wild goose chase, and significantly increase their work load while they're at it.

 

Edited November 23, 2024 by darkassassin07

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

9 minutes ago, darkassassin07 said:

That's exactly my point; there's no such thing as 'defaulting remote access to off'.

Emby is a server application accessed over a network. There is NO distinction between 'remote' and 'local', it's all just network access. How you configure the network emby server is attached to determines whether you have 'remote' access or not; not anything emby does or does not provide.

If anything emby would have to build in additional functionality to reject connections that don't originate from the local network; which could then still be bypassed fairly easily.

 

 

You're asking embys developers to engage in a wild goose chase, and significantly increase their work load while they're at it.

 

Good grief you are extremely dense. 
Defaulting remote access to off is simply a matter of changing which of two boxes is checked during an initial install. 

That would NOT be much effort at all. 

[TMCsw 249]

40 minutes ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

I have said that i want remote access disabled by default.

You pooped on me for agreeing on that!

So, Just lay your head down to rest and relax..

later, much later Dude

Edited November 23, 2024 by TMCsw
added emo

[Gilgamesh_48 1240]

10 minutes ago, TMCsw said:

You pooped on me for agreeing on that!

So, Just lay your head down to rest and relax..

later, much later Dude

No. I did not do that at all. I said in most/all my posts the I wanted remote access off by default.

The parts i did disagree with was your suggesting to use Linux and I clearly said that was not an acceptable solution and why.

[TMCsw 249]

5 minutes ago, Gilgamesh_48 said:

No. I did not do that at all. I said in most/all my posts the I wanted remote access off by default.

The parts i did disagree with was your suggesting to use Linux and I clearly said that was not an acceptable solution and why.

Please stop Obfuscating my reply about the OS with the Original topic:

Is it possible to have a release without remote ability?

I'm Done here.