Just curious: with that many changes, why's this still called 2.2 and not 3.0?
-
Started reading up on 2.2 since I plan to start beta testing sometime in the next few weeks when I have some spare time to deal with issues of upgrading one of my systems and the potential fall-out from doing so.
So I notice TONS of changes: new BSD version, new PHP, new IPSec, etc.
Seems kind of odd, that with all these changes, it's still called 2.x, makes me wonder what you'd have to change to name a version 3.0 ;)
Not like it matters, but I'm just trying to wrap my head around the version numbering convention at play here.
-
3.0 will have a brain API that will automagically config your firewall the way you THINK it.
-
Ha! I look forward to that. :)
As I understand it the goal for 2.2 was to bring the base FreeBSD version up to current without necessarily adding new features. That said the introduction of IPv6, which you could argue is a huge new feature, was also accompanied by only a point change. ;)
Steve
-
So I notice TONS of changes: new BSD version, new PHP, new IPSec, etc.
Seems kind of odd, that with all these changes, it's still called 2.x, makes me wonder what you'd have to change to name a version 3.0 ;)
I believe the idea is for 2.2 to have mostly 'back-end' updates (like the very things you pointed out), without too many UI changes or new features (other than what comes along with the changes). It was supposed to be a fairly quick release IIRC, to get the better HW support of the newer kernel and get things stabilized for feature creep later on.
-
Cisco radically changed the ASA from 8.2 to 8.3. Far more fundamental changes than are expected between pfSense 2.1 and 2.2.
