Was: Re: DevelopersBootStrapAndDevIso Guide Missing / Now: More random hate

Guest

@gonzopancho:

I believe I've documented (in another thread) how to gain access to the -tools repo.

Wow… you "documented" it by posting a messy howto burried in the middle of some random thread on this forum. This is incredibly "useful" way of documenting source code access for a project that screams to be PROVEN OPEN SOURCE in huge letters right on its website. You dude are such an incredible fail that it is extremely hard to believe. Why just you don't crawl back into your office and let the professional employees handle things?

i said I'd post an announcement, but doctornotor is never satisfied.

He's just an asshole, and always will be.

Guest

@charliem:

@gonzopancho:

@charliem:

Public access to the tools repo has been removed, so (re)-building yourself is not possible. Nor is it possible to test your own developments, see what modifications ESF has done to FreeBSD code or build your own packages (even for package authors). Read the past few months of forum and ML archives for more detail; there is quite a bit of discontent in the community, and effectively silence from ESF.

access to the tools has been restored

access to the source code was never impacted, so it was always possible to "see what modifications ESF has done"

you'll get farther with me by engaging with less BS

I stand by my original statements; if you have, since then, moved toward restoring tools access, that's great.

pfSense repository has been available, but code changes from FreeBSD were not available as they are in the tools repo. I hope this is not news to you.

I have no wish to engage you, I'm just a concerned user, trying to fill in another who was unaware of the recent changes in your development model and policies.

Nothing changed in the development model.

All that changed is that I made it quite clear what the policy is, after years of abuse at the hands of a few, who don't wish to even acknowledge the efforts of others.

Guest

@doktornotor:

@gonzopancho:

I believe I've documented (in another thread) how to gain access to the -tools repo.

Wow… you "documented" it by posting a messy howto burried in the middle of some random thread on this forum. This is incredibly "useful" way of documenting source code access for a project that screams to be PROVEN OPEN SOURCE in huge letters right on its website. You dude are such an incredible fail that it is extremely hard to believe. Why just you don't crawl back into your office and let the professional employees handle things?

I would invite you to fellate a dog, but I actually like dogs.

doktornotor

@gonzopancho:

He's just an asshole, and always will be.

@gonzopancho:

I would invite you to fellate a dog, but I actually like dogs.

This sets a whole new stardard for ESF… Screenshots made.

Back to topic here, maybe you could - instead of posting similar junk - just wash your filthy mouth and move your ass to produce an actually working howto on repo access. Or, as suggested before, just crawl back into your office and let professional people handle the dealing with public.

phil.davis

This sets a whole new stardard for ESF

I was actually offended by this language when I read it a few days ago. It is possible to have a disagreement and even argument on a forum without using language like that.
I hadn't thought of the "Report to moderator" button, should have done that straight away, but I have done that now, and stating that I am offended, which I am. Regardless of who the poster is, it is not acceptable to me. Maybe parts of these posts can be removed so that this sort of offensive language is not forever publicly visible on this otherwise friendly forum.
I have a feeling that there are other posts with offensive language - when I come across them again I will report those also.

doktornotor

Just for the record, I am not offended, I am just amazed what kind of person is in charge of this business… I thought this guy has been stretching things a bit too far originally, but apparently he's been spot on. Pretty sad if you ask me.

:o :(

stephalosaurus

@gonzopancho:

I would invite you to fellate a dog, but I actually like dogs.

Is this the same ganzopancho = Jim Thompson / James Thompson, officer/director/manager of Electric Sheep Fencing, LLC (ESF)?

Surreal doesn't describe this particular remark, regardless of who it's directed at.

@phil.davis:

This sets a whole new stardard for ESF

I was actually offended by this language when I read it a few days ago. It is possible to have a disagreement and even argument on a forum without using language like that.
I hadn't thought of the "Report to moderator" button, should have done that straight away, but I have done that now, and stating that I am offended, which I am. Regardless of who the poster is, it is not acceptable to me. Maybe parts of these posts can be removed so that this sort of offensive language is not forever publicly visible on this otherwise friendly forum.
I have a feeling that there are other posts with offensive language - when I come across them again I will report those also.

I've only recently signed up for the forums due to an abundant willingness to dig further and provide some of the changes I've made to my own installation(s), so my 'post count' means little in terms of matters to this point. I must admit, after reading this section and the way "administration" [sic] has mishandled what is clearly becoming a marketing and management fiasco to just about anyone who reads an overview of the situation, I'm disturbed and appalled, and have rapidly grown distrustful of "leadership".

A difference in viewpoints, no matter how large, should never descend to such a level, even if the provocateur is as skilled as doktornotor. Does the "administration" have any idea how that looks when they're marketing their services, at least in part, as first-line support for the product? As a client, what kind of support could be expected from those with such patently horrible public manners?

No one is asking for my $0.02 as an relative new-comer, so I'm offering it without respect to the inquisition.

If administration wants to call it open source - let it be purely open source, flaws within the model and all - we all know it's not perfect, and we all know it rarely puts food on the table. Free is free. To date, it has served pfSense well it seems.
If administration wants to turn it into a commercial product - call it as much, and let simple economics have their way with it, along with the exceptionally-poor marketing strategy currently in place. At least someone knows what business model to which their efforts are being applied.

I personally have no problem with either as long as I know what I'm getting into, but the situation in which the project currently finds itself is exceptionally bad.