Where is the pfSense 2.4.x FreeBSD OS source code
-
Well i'm not sure if your 10 minute timeframe is realistic.. (yes i have build 2.4dev in the past..) But even if so, you will be building a 2.4beta including bugs solved months ago..
-
Wasn't there a "How to compile pfsense yourself" how-to here 10 minutes ago?
-
Yep, and it got nuked by the author or management.
-
Thats too bad. I can't speak to the accuracy of it, but it looked like a worth-while comment.
-
Probably it is not allowed to advise people to change the```
AUTHORIZED BY NETGATE -
Very odd. I'm pretty sure thats how pfsense was born.
-
Having the pfSense copyright discussion of a while ago in mind its not that odd.. you may not build something yourself (without intended modifications) and call it pfSense. You should be able to compile it with the name MySense YourSense or something.. DoesThatMakeSense ? :) the 'authorized' variable skips the checks that the name must be changed.. If you do change the name then you can make your own fork and compile it if desired.. with a different name. So something new can still be 'born'/forked or thats the idea at least.. (if i didn't misinterpret anything..) Anyhow recent sources/patches are missing..
-
I could perhaps see an issue with someone making an evil compromised version of pfsense and passing it off as pfsense.
Name change wouldn't bother me.
-
Well i'm not sure if your 10 minute timeframe is realistic.. (yes i have build 2.4dev in the past..) But even if so, you will be building a 2.4beta including bugs solved months ago..
Perhaps it somehow works for someone when the moon phase is right (plus some drops of virgin blood added). The scripts are a deliberate sabotage of that effort, though. The docs vanished ages ago and - as you noted - in the end you end up with outdated, broken system.
I'm not even interested in rebuilding pfSense as such ATM. I was merely trying to fix kernel panics with LAGG in NAS4Free. Hopeless, because I cannot get the damned patches which I know for fact that are being used here. Top secret open-source. Sigh.
-
I've asked that the thread be unlocked.
to address the topics presented by 'doktornotor' (does anyone want to hazard a guess as to how much I enjoy responding to anonymous posters to the forum?):
the documentation was removed (It did not "disappear") because it was no longer accurate.
As the patches to FreeBSD are matured to a state where they can be upstreamed to FreeBSD, we will do so.
-
Thanks JWT. (Is that your real name?)
Kidding.It would be nice to know how to create from source an image. Is there a good how-to anywhere?
-
@jwt:
As the patches to FreeBSD are matured to a state where they can be upstreamed to FreeBSD, we will do so.
@gonzo: Not exactly the answer I was hoping for. Not only it doesn't help with my LAGG issue, but much more importantly - a product that cannot be rebuilt from available source code is not exactly something that'd fit the definition of open source. There are tons of close source firewalls/routers out there, that's not what pfSense users are looking for, obviously, otherwise they'd just use them.
-
a) we're not convinced that the LAGG issue is correctly fixed yet.
b) you could always write me directly and ask for that patch. have you done so? If you have, I can't find it. Engaging in this kind of cajoling and hyperbole on the forum is exactly how you drive me to ignoring you (all).
If the only value you ascribe to pfSense software is that it is open source, that none of the development, integration, Q&A and having a company solidly behind the project are of no value to you, then I suggest that you fork the project and find like-minded people to work on it with you.
We are, literally, investing millions of dollars in pfSense software and giving the result away to the community for their use. The only restriction is that commercial distribution is not allowed. This is because it is how we fund the development. Without the revenue associated with hardware sales, pfSense would not be developed at the rate the community has enjoyed for the past half decade.
It's like you're asking for that to stop.
-
Why would I be forking the project (doesn't make a particular sense when there already is a fork out there, plus why'd I use buggy half-year out-of-date code for that)? And why should I be writing to someone to get access to source code for a project that advertises itself an open source, with repos on GitHub? Kinda absurd, no?
Forget the LAGG example, it's a matter of principle. People are using open source so that they avoid the vendor lock-in, so yeah, that's the exact opposite of where you are heading apparently. They want to able to fix the product themselves, or get it fixed by a third-party of their choice, or have it adapted/enhanced according to their needs, and they believe than access to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code). Heck, they want to avoid situations when a company goes out of business and they are left with expensive hardware that's unfixable.
-
Or read the code, know its solid and compile from source… If you can't do that, its all sort of microsoft(ish)
Not that I need to make my own brew for myself now, but I might later.
-
For me its nice to see when or if something changed would help in troubleshooting new issues or bugs
-
[A]ccess to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code).
Or avoid more nefarious situations. I am not claiming Netgate would, but without source code, it’s impossible to know if Netgate has built in a backdoor for the NSA or is collecting data on users. One purpose behind open source code is to keep everyone honest. Without the ability to verify exactly what’s in the code you use, it’s not open source.
-
[A]ccess to the source code is an essential part of security (e.g., verify that bugs/vulnerabilities have been fixed properly in the source code).
Or avoid more nefarious situations. I am not claiming Netgate would, but without source code, it’s impossible to know if Netgate has built in a backdoor for the NSA or is collecting data on users. One purpose behind open source code is to keep everyone honest. Without the ability to verify exactly what’s in the code you use, it’s not open source.
I am not sure is it possible currently to check the compiled version against the source code, even if you have one and I may be paranoid but you can't trust anyone and anything, remember heartbleed bug?
Anyway I have to a agree with doktornotor, whatever Netgate say if you claim you software as opensource then make code available to public timely. -
Guys!
Hold on!
We need to distinguish two things:
pfSense as a product is an combination of more than one project, FreeBSD (BSD Licensed), and pfSense(Apache License) - bunch of fancy scripts + webgui to configure underlying OS…BSD License differs from GNU GPL! Netgate is NOT OBLIGATED to share any single line of code. do i like that: no, do i accept that: yes
To be honest right now i can take pfsense as a whole , skin it, add 2 lines of code, name it theSense, then close source and sell it as my product, as long i will display information about source origin. -> look to Apache and BSD licenses.
Second thing is an easiness of compilation. my previous posts was deleted by me, as i decided to verify on my own environment if i will able to build form whole thing from source.
Now i can honestly say, yes it isn't easy, but still possible if you have basic shell skills, 2 brain cells.
-
If you spent same amount energy on actually programming, probably you should be able to show middle finger to netgate and have working 6rd in mainline kernel BTW.
