pfSense 2.5 Release Date News
-
Is the rest API still a target, or is it deadlocked in TNSR???
-
Not for 2.5 it isn't. That was what as driving the AES-NI requirement. See:
https://www.netgate.com/blog/pfsense-2-5-0-development-snapshots-now-available.html#aes-ni-not-requiredSteve
-
@stephenw10 I understand that.
I think some better idea of the future of pfSense would be appropriate. As a couple people already mentioned they spent the money to upgrade the equipment, and some of us were happy to do it if it meant an API.
Not a huge deal. pfSense is always caught between comments like this, and trying to stay opensource. I do not want to come off as unappreciative, but if I went through all this non-sense for pfSense to pull back, I want to make a mental note why for the future.
-
@webdawg said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
I do not want to come off as unappreciative
Same here...that's why I believe if an entity made a strategy decision, it should follow through. That's what I admired in Apple despite my expensive hardware became obsolete...but guess what, I turned around and bought many more.
I had been causally reading up on Restconf API here: https://tools.ietf.org/html/rfc8040 If I were pfSense, I would have at least make it available as a package...that way, the open source would continue to support innovation while remaining adaptable to all members. I think that's the essence of open source.
-
@NollipfSense What do you know that we don't? Where has it been said that the plan to use RESTCONF API has been dropped? I think you are jumping to conclusions. It's only been stated that RESTCONF API is not part of the 2.5 release.
Re: release as a package - I think you are underestimating the work involved and what the API will be used for. There has been a roadmap posts on the Netgate blog.
https://www.netgate.com/blog/further-a-roadmap-for-pfsense.html
https://www.netgate.com/blog/more-on-aes-ni.htmlGranted the posts are from 2015 & 2017 and maybe it is time for an updated roadmap blog post from Netgate. My guess is the API will be part of the 3.0 release, where the webGUI is rewritten. Why update the current PHP webGUI to use RESTCONF now only to replace all of PHP for 3.0 with Python? I'd rather have the developers working on 3.0.
-
@ahking19 Yeh, that is why I was asking. If the previous road-maps are not accurate...I was just looking for an update. I did not want to turn this thread bad.
-
Why was new hardware bought for a release that as yet has not official date?
Even if you waited until it was released, before buying new hardware, it's not like it takes months to arrive anyway.
-
@ahking19 said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
What do you know that we don't? Where has it been said that the plan to use RESTCONF API has been dropped? I think you are jumping to conclusions. It's only been stated that RESTCONF API is not part of the 2.5 release.
Absolutely nothing, in fact, I am learning from you. I didn't mean to imply RESTCONF dropping, only dropped from 2.5v. I am just wanting to learn about it since I encounter pfSense late 2016 and that the gospel was all newbies should get hardware to meet pfSense 2.5v.
@webdawg said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
I did not want to turn this thread bad.
Not at all and was never intended to be that way either...my hope is others checkout RESTCONF.
@Rod-It said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
Why was new hardware bought for a release that as yet has not official date?
I had not visited the forum for quite awhile but remembered most of the talk with newbies during 2017 -2018 on the forum was to get hardware to meet pfSense 2.5v. So, after buying the hardware and returning to the forum, that's when I found out. The good thing is I got what I was seeking in hardware, and it should able to grow with pfSense over the next five years.
-
Dang, if they're waiting on FreeBSD 12.1 we probably will not see 2.5 this year.
-
@Zermus said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
Dang, if they're waiting on FreeBSD 12.1 we probably will not see 2.5 this year.
It surely is appearing that way!
-
@KOM
It is not a hurry for 2.5 but also the development for 2.4.4 seems to be "frozen" as there are no package updates for it since a while.e.g.
Squid is stable in version 4.8 and in pfSense in version 3.5.28 of July 2018ntoPNG is stable in version 3.8 from December 2018 and in pfsense in version 3.6
There is just the "feeling" for users that pfSense is not of "high interest" of Netgate anymore because in former times there were more often regular updates, etc.
-
@ramup said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
@KOM
It is not a hurry for 2.5 but also the development for 2.4.4 seems to be "frozen" as there are no package updates for it since a while.e.g.
Squid is stable in version 4.8 and in pfSense in version 3.5.28 of July 2018ntoPNG is stable in version 3.8 from December 2018 and in pfsense in version 3.6
There is just the "feeling" for users that pfSense is not of "high interest" of Netgate anymore because in former times there were more often regular updates, etc.
Almost all of the packages available for pfSense were created by and are maintained by volunteer contributors. The pfSense team looks after very few of the available packages. For various reasons these volunteer maintainers come and go, so the support of their particular package may suffer when one of them "abandons" it.
For example, I maintain the Snort and Suricata packages 100% as a volunteer contributor. There is no involvement of the pfSense developer team with either package other than the fact one of them "merges" updates I submit for those packages into the pfSense repository. So if a bus runs over me today, the Snort and Suricata packages would no longer be actively maintained.
Of course other package maintainers are welcome to enter the field. In fact, I took over the Snort package several years ago after its initial creator abandoned the pfSense eco-system. I believe user @BBcan177 took over the older pfBlocker package a few years ago and morphed it into the much more capable pfBlockerNG and pfBlockerNG-devel packages. So if you are concerned about support for packages, then please consider stepping up and becoming a volunteer maintainer.
-
@bmeeks
Thank you for this statement. I just wrote what my perception of an end user is and can only estimate that other users might think in a equivalent way in respect of regularly updates in the past.Unfortunately I am not a developer / programmer etc. with the necessary skills / ability to take care of a certain package.
I appreciate that other people with the needed skills take care of certain packages like you do.
Unfortunately there seems to be no capacity for Netgate to maintain the core (additional) packages. -
And of coarse you can always help out by testing. :)
https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/issues?query_id=105
-
@ramup Don't judge progress by package updates alone.
pfSense Activity
https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/activitypfSense 2.5.0 Open Issues
https://redmine.pfsense.org/projects/pfsense/issues?query_id=104 -
@ramup said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
@bmeeks
Thank you for this statement. I just wrote what my perception of an end user is and can only estimate that other users might think in a equivalent way in respect of regularly updates in the past.Unfortunately I am not a developer / programmer etc. with the necessary skills / ability to take care of a certain package.
I appreciate that other people with the needed skills take care of certain packages like you do.
Unfortunately there seems to be no capacity for Netgate to maintain the core (additional) packages.I didn't mean my post as an idictment or anything personal against anyone. I was just trying to convey that the packages on pfSense are, for the most part, done by others outside of the Netgate/pfSense core team. Those guys are busy enough working on the core firewall itself and the handful of supporting utilities and kernel patches required.
If a pfSense user does have some PHP coding skills (primarily) and has familiarity with a particular FreeBSD port package, then please consider picking up support, or aiding in the support, of a package.
-
-
@ahking19 Have you seen anyone from Netgate say that they're still going to release pfsense 3.0 with VPP/DPDK and RESTCONF? Literally all evidence to date is that what was going to be PFSense 3.0 is TNSR instead, heck the preview of PFSense 3.0 looks identical to TNSR.
It's disappointing that Netgate won't just give a clear answer, but that's their prerogative. I'd never begrudge them expecting to get paid for their efforts if that's the route they chose to go, just frustrating they won't come right out and say that instead of leaving the community to guess.
https://fast.dpdk.org/events/slides/DPDK-2017-09-Ireland-pfSense.pdf
https://www.reddit.com/r/PFSENSE/comments/6wosx8/a_very_short_preview_of_30_cli_and_restconf/
https://docs.netgate.com/tnsr/en/latest/basics/working-cli.html -
@tcsac Thanks for providing this information. I did not look into TNSR, but it does look like you seem right.
It is a true shame if what you say is true, that functionality that is built into other enterprise devices, that pfSense is copying, is now bundled into a TNSR subscription. Sure the vector packet processing is great...but command and control bundled with it?
I hope I am wrong, but if I am not I will be at a loss for words soon. I do not think it is there prerogative, and I think that people deserve an answer eventuall. If they really are thinking about taking this direction with their products, and software then they should just commit to it.
It could be that is why they do not answer. Considering that the product that they release still has maintainers that do not get paid for the packages that they support. I was really looking forward to an API, and command line interfaces.
I was really looking forward to watching a company sweep the run out from under Cisco etc...I suppose soon we will have to look elsewhere, or just continue to wait?
I really still do wholeheartedly support pfSense, and Open Source software, and I do understand that companies need a strategy to profit from it, AND they may even need to hide that strategy, but the direction that we seem to be going here would need a change or we are all going to walk away disappointed.
-
@tcsac said in pfSense 2.5 Release Date News:
It's disappointing that Netgate won't just give a clear answer, but that's their prerogative.
Yes, surely it must be nefarious.... Seriously, you guys are being ridiculous. You expect them to update you on their future plans every day? Or just whenever you demand? Plans change. That's life. Netgate isn't Microsoft with tens of thousands of employees. There is only so much they can do, and sometimes plans turn out to be too ambitious or impractical based on new developments. It looks like their plans for pfSense 3.0 may have changed. Deal with it. I understand now why companies are loathe to talk about the future and roadmaps when people complain if those plans change for any reason.
I suppose the lesson learned by Netgate is to not tell you anything in advance.
