Announcing pfSense plus
-
Just to make things clear....
Currently testing freebsd based FW's for the foreign state department here and closed source is a no go.
They have issues with the US spying on live traffic thats encrypted. So it can be done...
And I will always, on a personal level, run MiTM and not make anybody beeing able ro run anything other than the DNS provided.
-
@dennis_s said in Announcing pfSense plus:
Read our latest blog which includes a FAQ to learn more about this exciting change.
I can't see anything exciting in this post... only stupid decisions.
Just my 0,02$
-
I am ok with it, if there is a full free version for home use, because I don't think that those people will pay for a firewall in the first place... unless it becomes a full-fledged WiFi-router. Pls don't.
-
@bob-dig said in Announcing pfSense plus:
I am ok with it, if there is a full free version for home use, because I don't think that those people will pay for a firewall in the first place... unless it becomes a full-fledged WiFi-router. Pls don't.
Free version doesn't equal OSS version and for many projects that reach out about ditching other vendors in favor of pfSense, that IS one of the - if not THE - main incentive. So while free version for home use is fine, that does nothing for planning bigger projects at the moment. And because of the "we don't know yet" throughout the FAQ/blog post in terms of 3rd party HW, licensing, costs and future of the CE version, that is an almost impossible sell at the moment for any new project that goes on right now or in the following weeks. Because no company wants a solution that will change course, get stale in the future or other fears that already have been laid out.
-
as far as I am concerned
It is as informed as possible about this
**
It is an impossible sell** -
I completely understand the free-to-use community being frustrated by the move to close-source a product and charge for full-featured software, but I can tell you from my years working with companies to build solutions, there are a lot of companies out there that aren't allowed to use open source anything.
I don't agree with that thinking, but it is what it is in the business world.
This may make a lot of people who aren't paying anyway stop using this platform, but this is going to open another set of doors for pfSense, ones that simply don't exist under an open source code model - and those doors are going to be willing to pay - potentially a lot of money for support and to use the software.
I'm not trying to start a huge argument here, that's just fact.
-
cant agree more !
heaven and hell are two windows in the same house, or something like that
brNP
-
I have chosen pfSense a few years ago to have firewalls on which I can do whatever I need. To support Netgate and the project, I have bought about 20 appliances, mostly sg-3100. On several occasions, pfSense has proven to be a perfect choice for my needs. I have been able with some lines of code to implement custom functions and to patch all the required appliances. Also, I have invested a lot of my free time to create and contribute to ansible modules to manage our pfSense fleet and was eagerly waiting for the GUI/control code separation.
Now, since sg-3100 runs on ARM, I won't be able to run pfSense CE on them. So, to keep an open-source platform, the only choice I have is to stay forever on the last pfSense FE release. The other choice would be to go close source with pfSense plus and hope for the best (no script obfuscation ever, no closed source patches on binaries I may need to patch and build). It looks like two dead-ends to me. And I feel fooled: it wouldn't have happened to me if I hadn't decided to support Netgate and become a customer.
Anyway, I saw the argument "pfSense plus is something more, not less" multiple times on Reddit. Given my situation, I disagree: dropping pfSense FE and the open-source model for customers is definitly something less.
-
-
New blog post concerning these changes:
https://www.netgate.com/blog/pfsense-plus-pfsense-ce-dev-insights-direction.html
One change I noticed is the availability of pfSense + for non-Netgate hardware is now late 2021. I'm not sure if that is an actual change in Netgate's internal planning or just the author being careful to not over promise.
-
@jwj Can't edit so...
This is from the FAQ (as of 1-27-21):
"Today, pfSense Plus 21.02 is only available on Netgate appliances, AWS, and Azure platforms.
We plan to make pfSense Plus available for use on 3rd party hardware and select virtual machines by June 2021, if not sooner.
There will be a no charge path for home and lab use and a chargeable version for commercial use."
and in today's blog:
"The good news is that we also plan to make pfSense Plus available to work on non-Netgate hardware in late 2021, not just our appliances, and we plan to make the licensing of pfSense Plus completely free for home, hobby, and lab use."
-
@jwj
there is "only" a new gui written on Go and clixon May or September it's not important for me. 2.6CE is still planned
In the past, a release was made “when it’s ready” <- (he is stealing Jimp's motto
)
There will be CE releases after 2.6, but unlike Plus, they’ll be done when they’re ready, not on a regular cadence.
Scott Long ( welcome
) was reassuring somehow -
@kiokoman said in Announcing pfSense plus:
There will be CE releases after 2.6, but unlike Plus, they’ll be done when they’re ready, not on a regular cadence.
Works for Debian perfect ;)
-
What's the benefit for the community of these changes exactly?
-
I installed pfSense for a friend at his home. However he also runs 2 businesses from his home. How would the new licensing apply to him?
Will he be able to upgrade to pfSense+ without paying (since it's his home)? Or would he have to buy a pfSense+ licence given that he runs 2 businesses from his home?
-
None of that info has been put out yet.
But lets use a little common sense here - will these 2 bushiness he runs out of his home need the + features of pfsense? Will he need say "Zero Touch Provisioning for easier drop ship of unprovisioned appliances" ?
Will maybe need business level dashboard for all of his installs?
Will he maybe need "GUI / device control separation, which facilitates multi-instance management"
He will get + if he has an appliance - but some of these other so called features may need to be "licensed"
No costing model has been even hinted at yet..
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.03 -
Question. Will it be up to you to decide what scenario he wants?
Its up to the user. Not to vendor to decide what the user needs or wants.
-
@jwj thanks for sharing the link to the updated post!
Unfortunately Scott does not tell why pfSense Plus cannot be open source too so the users are able to trust the code.
Also pfSense CE will slowly fall behind - well that is my interpretation of Scott's words:...Where does that leave the pfSense CE releases? This is a burning question for our users, and for good reason. The pfSense community has been good to us, and we wouldn’t exist without it. In return, we’ve done our best to be good stewards in the community, both in terms of providing resources and in terms of our open source code commitment. We’re already planning a pfSense CE 2.6 release in mid-2021. We’re still fully participating in the open source communities that make up the foundation of pfSense, and we’re still driving that code upstream and into the open. This isn’t going away, but it is going to evolve as our code in pfSense Plus evolves. ....
It can be interpreted in more ways - like they would like to evolve/extend driving code upstream, but it can also be interpreted as pfSense CE is not going to get updates forever.
So a clear statement about whether the changes related to the new middleware and new GUI eventually will go into pfSense CE (open source) would make people happy in respect to continuing using pfSense... -
@cool_corona said in Announcing pfSense plus:
Not to vendor to decide what the user needs or wants.
When has that ever been the case? If he has no need for any of the stuff that will be part of + he can just use CE.
Is he even using netgate appliances?
An intelligent man is sometimes forced to be drunk to spend time with his fools
If you get confused: Listen to the Music Play
Please don't Chat/PM me for help, unless mod related
SG-4860 24.11 | Lab VMs 2.7.2, 24.03 -
But it doesnt matter....
Its irrelevant.
He is using OSS as a choice. If he is limited by any means by turning OSS into closed source, then he will run away or use a another vendor with a better feature set.
As I stated. The foreign Department here has denied use of closed for a reason.
So has many users and contributors over the years.
I have been a part of the user base since Manuel Kasper and M0n0wall.
There is no doubt that people will turn to other vendors offering OSS aplliances.
