Why a change in a rules' description needs to apply changes?
-
@Wolfgangthegreat said in Why a change in a rules' description needs to apply changes?:
the apply changes prompt to users.
Bear in mind that a firewall doesn't have users like a computer; it has administrators and the descriptions help make sense of what was done.
-
Because saving a firewall rule after editing it could have made changes that require reloading the ruleset. Currently there is no code to determine if the change requires it so the 'safe' option is to reload the filer.
Steve
-
@stephenw10 I guess so. It is easier for the developers but not so for users. Today for example we add and remove separators in the rulebase, without need to apply changes, hence there is some practice of changes in the visual level of the rulebase that do not call for applying changes.
It will be nice to have a distinction which global fields of fw rules will be saved but not trigger a prompt to apply changes.
-
Applying changes that only reload the ruleset should be little or no impact. Clicking an extra button doesn't seem like much of an inconvenience unless I'm missing something? Developer time can almost certainly be better spent on other things IMO.
-
@stephenw10 Well, I'm just slightly hinting the pfSense can benefit from better UX and care for it... but, hey, that's just me.
-
@Wolfgangthegreat said in Why a change in a rules' description needs to apply changes?:
I'm just slightly hinting the pfSense can benefit from better UX and care for it.
That's why I had said earlier that a firewall was not meant for "users" in the sense that would require UX as it's not appealing to a mass of "users" the way Apple or a website would. The UX of a firewall is sufficient for the targeted few administrators who will interact with it.
-
@NollipfSense That's an interesting attitude... :)
Well, there is a huge gap between the pf UX and apple UX. Still, humans use pf, and I think a better work can be done about it.
But, hey, it is free, so no complaints by me... only pointing directions for improvment. -
@Wolfgangthegreat said in Why a change in a rules' description needs to apply changes?:
@NollipfSense That's an interesting attitude... :)
Well, there is a huge gap between the pf UX and apple UX. Still, humans use pf, and I think a better work can be done about it.
But, hey, it is free, so no complaints by me... only pointing directions for improvment.But, pfSense does offer UX...administrators can change the layout or dashboard columns, the login page colors, and one can arrange the widgets in any manner desired for the administrator's taste. However, you started out with:
@Wolfgangthegreat said init looks ridiculous and unneeded.
Usually, an advocate of UX starts out with something positive about pfSense's UX then share potential improvements...from how I presented myself, you should able to tell I am an advocate of UX.
-
@NollipfSense The UX approach you mentioned, of "change the layout or dashboard columns, the login page colors, and one can arrange the widgets in any manner desired for the administrator's taste" is not important in my view, it is more the Apple approach, the beauty of things.
I prefer a UX that tries to help user's activities - like not forcing them to apply changes when obviously it is not needed; to let them glue together a separator and its rules to move around as bundle instead of one by one and so on.
Before pf I used firewalld on my server, so pf is surely a great jump forward, one that I will definitely won't retreat from... I post here because, I care, because I want to make pf better, for me and for all, not be because I am a bitter ranter who likes to harass folks....
-
@Wolfgangthegreat said in Why a change in a rules' description needs to apply changes?:
I prefer a UX that tries to help user's activities
But, again pfSense's UX does...ever notice a small blue circle with ! or a small red circle with ?
-
@NollipfSense Yes, it is nice, but I push forward, towards things that I think are more helpful
