Netgate Discussion Forum
    • Categories
    • Recent
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Search
    • Register
    • Login

    Announcing pfSense plus

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved Messages from the pfSense Team
    152 Posts 53 Posters 82.0k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • P
      Patch
      last edited by

      From the blog Announcing pfSense Plus

      • installed over two million times, with at least half that many in active use today

      • our customers ... In particular, however, are business, government, and education customers.

      • pfSense Plus ... move beyond the limitations of pfSense open source software

      • pfSense Plus for my own hardware or virtual machine ... There will be a no charge path for home and lab use and a chargeable version for commercial use

      • Which is the same pricing model as TNSR

      I assume I will get flamed for this but that policy does not make any sense to me as it says:

      • Netgate has about 1 million users, by far the majority don't pay any money for the service they receive and this will continue.

      • We price our software product out of the range of small business. In the past service provides could help them use our CE software but in the future they will have to look elsewhere

      • We pin all our hopes for business viability of our software product line on big business, where our software product is relatively economical.

      In my opinion, given Netgates user base, it would make far more sense to capitalize on micro transactions.

      • Don't give the proprietary software to any one for free, but ensure the price is low enough represents that it is excellent value for everyone.

      • Scale cost gradually with installation size, using some measurable parameter such as users devices. Use a soft limit so the system continues to work if used beyond licensed capacity but the user is informed (& Netgate collect license violation statistics)

      • At the base product have only forum and on-line manuals support (enabling it to be a low cost product). Even $20 / year x 1 million users pays for a significant amount of development.

      • Support a proportional cost increase for larger installation so larger homes or test beds do not suddenly hit a price barrier.

      • Do not offer volume discounts to mid sized customers but include higher level support which are demanded from larger paying customers. Include business level support options.

      As for PfSense open source product, the future does not look bright

      • Historically, pfSense FE and pfSense Community Edition (CE) have been closely related ... In 2021, they will begin to diverge from one another ... Netgate will focus most of its efforts on pfSense Plus ... pfSense CE ... security vulnerability protection ... 2) hardware support updates, and 3) bug fixes ... upgrade path to pfSense Plus (? nagware)
      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • provelsP
        provels
        last edited by

        I have just returned from the future and everything worked out fine.
        Unsubscribing from this thread for now.

        Peder

        MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
        BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

        DaddyGoD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
        • M
          mfld LAYER 8
          last edited by

          @patch said in Announcing pfSense plus:

          In my opinion, given Netgates user base, it would make far more sense to capitalize on micro transactions.

          +1. I had a few Gold subscriptions back then, expecting nothing in return other than ACB and the pfSense book. Now sure why they made that free, discontinued Gold and now make it super hard to give them money. Entry level for showing some love now is a TAC at Black Friday / COVID discount (399.00 a year). Why ?

          S 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
          • S
            slu @mfld
            last edited by

            @mfld said in Announcing pfSense plus:

            @patch said in Announcing pfSense plus:

            In my opinion, given Netgates user base, it would make far more sense to capitalize on micro transactions.

            +1. I had a few Gold subscriptions back then, expecting nothing in return other than ACB and the pfSense book.

            +1 We had it only to sponsoring Netgate and would like to see a "Gold Sponsoring" back...

            pfSense Gold subscription

            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • DaddyGoD
              DaddyGo @provels
              last edited by

              @provels said in Announcing pfSense plus:

              Unsubscribing from this thread for now.

              just like you do, I'm also :)

              Cats bury it so they can't see it!
              (You know what I mean if you have a cat)

              ? 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • ?
                A Former User @DaddyGo
                last edited by

                @daddygo @provels Sounds like a good idea ;) I'm out.

                M ? 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • M
                  mr.pine @A Former User
                  last edited by

                  It 's time to migrate to https://opnsense.org ?

                  provelsP 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                  • provelsP
                    provels @mr.pine
                    last edited by

                    @mr-pine said in Announcing pfSense plus:

                    It 's time to migrate to https://opnsense.org ?

                    ➡ 🚪

                    Peder

                    MAIN - pfSense+ 24.11-RELEASE - Adlink MXE-5401, i7, 16 GB RAM, 64 GB SSD. 500 GB HDD for SyslogNG
                    BACKUP - pfSense+ 23.01-RELEASE - Hyper-V Virtual Machine, Gen 1, 2 v-CPUs, 3 GB RAM, 8GB VHDX (Dynamic)

                    M 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                    • ?
                      A Former User @A Former User
                      last edited by

                      @jwj said in Announcing pfSense plus:

                      Sounds like a good idea ;) I'm out.

                      Clarification, I'm out of this thread. Not out of pfSense.

                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                      • M
                        mhab12
                        last edited by

                        Been reading both this and the other 'dev' post regarding PfS+. Curious as to the 'why?' behind closing the source of the plus edition. I don't believe this has been addressed. I have a couple ideas but hate to speculate...would love to hear from the team on this.

                        Just because something is open source doesn't mean it has to be free, correct? I am all for paying for great software (former Gold member, purchased support cases over the years, have a few Netgate boxes running) and would be happy to further support the project but would prefer to see PfS+ remain fully open source.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 5
                        • M
                          mr.pine @provels
                          last edited by

                          @provels
                          Maybe its better for you to be quiet

                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                          • D
                            drewsaur @fbor
                            last edited by

                            @fbor pfSense FE was never open source. Not sure what you are getting at here.

                            F 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                            • F
                              fbor @drewsaur
                              last edited by

                              @drewsaur The differences are small with CE, a few packages (AWS Wizard, IPSec exporter, ...), some tuning for the hardware. I checked a few FE only files: they are not obfuscated and are all licensed under Apache license. So maybe FE is only 99.99% opensource but that's not the 0.01% I'm worried about.

                              With pfSense+, will I still be able to change everything I may need, at least in the "CE layers", and not get stuck asking the editor for changes ?

                              D 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • D
                                drewsaur @fbor
                                last edited by

                                @fbor I would imagine that this will be the case for a very long time. I can’t see how, anytime soon, the majority of pfSense+ would be replaced with completely different code. That would be like https://www.joelonsoftware.com/2000/04/06/things-you-should-never-do-part-i/ - completely self-defeating.

                                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • F
                                  FeFe @al
                                  last edited by

                                  @al I really do not see how you cannot benefit from keeping OSS roots and your paying customers and keep advancing!

                                  You now basically abandon it by out-forking the OSS version into Closed source and get onto the route RedHat just got with CentOS. On top of that, the trust into pfSense because of the OSS nature will be gone and the closed nature will raise questions and break trust on unseen backdoor/weakened security!

                                  On top of that you still advertise/market/benefit the power of the OSS base, yet all the full-feature changes will not get into the CE?

                                  Did I miss something?!?

                                  1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 3
                                  • occamsrazorO
                                    occamsrazor @Inxsible
                                    last edited by

                                    @inxsible said in Announcing pfSense plus:

                                    Assume that the user stays on the CE version as they do not need any of the ZeroTier, Business dashboard etc features that you mentioned

                                    @Inxsible - Did I miss some announcement about ZeroTier integration in pfSense Plus? Do you have more information? I'd be very excited if this is true.....

                                    pfSense CE on Qotom Q355G4 8GB RAM/60GB SSD
                                    Ubiquiti Unifi wired and wireless network, APC UPSs
                                    Mac OSX and IOS devices, QNAP NAS

                                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                    • S
                                      Symon
                                      last edited by

                                      How do I install the 2.5.0 version on a Netgate appliance. FOSS is more important to me than the extra features. I want to use the community version with a Netgate appliance.

                                      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 2
                                      • B
                                        bimmerdriver
                                        last edited by

                                        I've been busy, so I didn't notice this announcement until a few days ago. I just checked and noted that I joined this community in 2016 after I started using pfSense in 2015. Previously, I was using Sophos because it went downhill after going from open source to closed source. I can't say that I'm surprised by this announcement from Netgate, but it's disappointing nonetheless. Unless Netgate will make the entirety of the pfSense codebase available such that anyone could build it from scratch or even fork it, I can't see why anyone would contribute to further development and testing of CE. You would be doing development that Netgate could incorporate into pfSense plus for its commercial gain with no compensation or assurances of getting anything in return for your effort.

                                        Around 2018, a former pfSense developer that I tested with jumped ship to OPNsense and he is very happy there. I've maintained an OPNsense test system alongside my pfSense test system since that time. For anyone who values an open source community, OPNsense should be a serious consideration.

                                        B 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 5
                                        • B
                                          bitfrost @bimmerdriver
                                          last edited by

                                          @bimmerdriver

                                          Ok, so I just started trying out pfsense and right when I registered to this forum to ask some questions, I have to read that pfsense is going to closed source and will become irrelvant sooner than later.

                                          It will become irrelvant because the open source version won't be getting much, if any, attention, and it will die out. That means that fewer and fewer companies may still buy from Netgate because without the open source version pfsense will be forgotten and soon nobody will know about it anymore.

                                          And who would want to rely on closed source software, especially for a security device? In times in wich the raping of peoples privacy is rapidly increasing and users are being controlled by software more and more, free software is the only way go to.

                                          In my testing, pfsense has made a really good impression and seems like a well-made and solid software to the point that I would recommend it. But now we're not going to buy Netgate products and will have to keep looking for something else.

                                          noplanN P JeGrJ 3 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                          • noplanN
                                            noplan @bitfrost
                                            last edited by

                                            @bitfrost

                                            Your statement is false!
                                            And that's the bottom line.

                                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • First post
                                              Last post
                                            Copyright 2025 Rubicon Communications LLC (Netgate). All rights reserved.