A hardy "Welcome!" to OPNsense!

Supermule

Do you like to be able to hold a beer when you are 80 years old?

Then I would suggest you minimized your CLI use and began using a mouse for whatever task you need.

Why key in 100 letters when you could do with 2 mouseclicks?

You wouldnt be where you are today if we still had nothing but CLI.

stephenw10

I plan to use a straw. :P

I don't really see why they have to exclusive though. Including both good gui and cli setup options seems to be the way to go IMHO. To a large extent that what we have already. A link in the console menu to 'reload the config file' would be useful and even maybe a direct link to 'edit the config file' with some warning.

Now that OPNsense exists it will be interesting to see if they decide to modify the CLI.

Steve

Mr. Jingles

@kejianshi:

For once Phil, I think I will pass on one of your ideas (-;

As much as I like Phil, I think I will follow you here, Kej ;D

Mr. Jingles

@stephenw10:

There is some call for that. There have been quite a few posts asking about a full CLI config option.
Interesting isn't it. I guess it depends what background you have as to what you expect.

Steve

What could be a useful addition to have for certain tasks is what we had (have) in SAP: a sort of 'macro recorder' to mass execute tasks. I recall creating hundreds of thousands BIM's (Batch Input Map) by recording a transaction once, then executing that script with the raw data in Excel as a source, all happily combined in a FOR % in etc- dos batch file.

I know I'm talking SAP, and not pfSense, so example: migration from old Oracle ERP to SAP R/3 (later called 'MySAP' and the further subsequent renames of the mighty system):

Export , for example, article master data from Oracle;
Clean, convert, enrich data with ABAP (or whatever);
Record BIM-template;
'Do the BIM' (insider joke ;D );
Upload 1 million article masters to SAP MDM (Master Data Management) in 1 hour. Saved many, many, many man years of custom coding back then.

@phil.davis:

I went for decades with OpenVMS/DCL using the GUI for everything, and a text editor on VT100/VT220 terminals. Actually it is really good when it is what you use every day.

Decades with OpenVMS?

(It's like finding a long-lost relative.)

DEC only renamed Vax/VMS to "OpenVMS" in 1991 ( 5.4-2 release )

So.. decades, you only recently gave it up? For Lent, or something? ;D ;D

stan-qaz

Plenty of Vax or Open VMS jobs available today if my Google search didn't go wrong.

@stan-qaz:

Plenty of Vax or Open VMS jobs available today if my Google search didn't go wrong.

Sure… there is software running on OpenVMS that is difficult to port to a *nix system.
(Says the guy who helped put OpenVMS on an Alphabook built by Tadpole for Digital back in the day.)
http://www.thefreelibrary.com/Tadpole+Technology+announces+the+ALPHAbook+1,+the+world's+most...-a017809952

But the hardware is getting old (unless you count the supported HP Itanium blade stuff.)

Fortunately, HP has spun out VMS development and they have an x86 port planned:
http://www.vmssoftware.com/news/announcement/RM/VMS_Software_Roadmap.pdf

The circle is now complete.

phil.davis

@gonzopancho:

@phil.davis:

I went for decades with OpenVMS/DCL using the GUI for everything, and a text editor on VT100/VT220 terminals. Actually it is really good when it is what you use every day.

Decades with OpenVMS?

(It's like finding a long-lost relative.)

DEC only renamed Vax/VMS to "OpenVMS" in 1991 ( 5.4-2 release )

So.. decades, you only recently gave it up? For Lent, or something? ;D ;D

Yes, it was VAX/VMS until Alpha hardware came along, then I guess just VMS then OpenVMS.
I started with VAX/VMS 4.something in around 1985 with VAX 11/750 and worked with VMS in various places up to 2009.

@phil.davis:

@gonzopancho:

@phil.davis:

I went for decades with OpenVMS/DCL using the GUI for everything, and a text editor on VT100/VT220 terminals. Actually it is really good when it is what you use every day.

Decades with OpenVMS?

(It's like finding a long-lost relative.)

DEC only renamed Vax/VMS to "OpenVMS" in 1991 ( 5.4-2 release )

So.. decades, you only recently gave it up? For Lent, or something? ;D ;D

Yes, it was VAX/VMS until Alpha hardware came along, then I guess just VMS then OpenVMS.
I started with VAX/VMS 4.something in around 1985 with VAX 11/750 and worked with VMS in various places up to 2009.

I'm so sorry! Are you feeling better now?

It's all in how you look at things, I suppose.

https://twitter.com/jschellevis/status/551809974465478656

http://sourceforge.net/projects/opnsense/files/stats/timeline?dates=2015-01-01+to+2015-01-30

Cino

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1849687&page=2

OPNsense is getting its name out there if you want to call it that

Mr. Jingles

@Cino:

http://hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=1849687&page=2

OPNsense is getting its name out there if you want to call it that

Thanks ;D

| BlueLineSwinger Limp Gawd, 3.2 Years | | Status: |

Originally Posted by diizzy You also probably want to run http://opnsense.org/ rather than PFSense these days…
//Danne

Uh, OK. Mind actually expanding on that and explaining your position instead of just doing a link-and-run?

So far as I can tell from a brief skimming of their website, OPNsense is simply a new fork of pfSense made for the sake of building/expanding a consulting business, with promises of code cleanup and features that may or may not happen. Maybe it'll work out well, similar to how Ubiquiti forked Vyatta for the EdgeRouter series, but until we see some actual reviews and shootouts between pfSense and OPNsense there's nothing to base your recommendation on.

(And, to be honest, your post makes you look like a shill.)

I think I like this comment ;D

There's a tradeoff, if you're a firewall junkie you don't want pfsense at all most likely

I guess that the majority of pfSense users isn't even aware 1) of PF specifically 2) where it comes from and 3) of its status in FreeBSD.

If anything, my criticism rhetorically targeted the makers of pfSense.

Personally, I run plain OpenBSD and vi /etc/pf.conf.

Personally, I run pfSense since I am not getting paid all day long to learn Unix on the boss' his expense while being an admin in an IT department; this, btw, is how you properly define market segments in a business plan ;D

Mr. Jingles

Mr.Jongles and Mr. Jangles, creative thinkers and entrepeneurs.

Can you please ban this?

( 8) )

;D ;D ;D

kejianshi

I'm a whore for whatever works best for me… No allegiances.
So, I'm on pfsense - for my needs its best by far.
If opensense gets to be better, I'll switch, but thats a pretty tall order.

Mr. Jingles

@kejianshi:

I'm a whore for whatever works best for me… No allegiances.
So, I'm on pfsense - for my needs its best by far.
If opensense gets to be better, I'll switch, but thats a pretty tall order.

I'm not a whore, I'm a loyal dude, WIFE appreciate me that way too (says I'm still handsome) ;D

My position is a little bit more subtile: I do believe in loyalty. This project (A. admins + B. community of users) has given so much to me, and I do feel welcome here, and (most) people are nice and kind, that I will not walk: even not if opnsense, magically (…), would become better than pfSense. I'd rather stay and help. Of course, IF project (A, B), atmosphere, etc change then I would be forced to move on.

I doubt that will happen in my lifetime :P

Montaro

I've been a reasonably long time pfSense user, and recently started contributing some patches here and there. I don't know if its just my loyalty to the pfSense project, or my own morals intervening here, but my recent discovery of this "OPNsense" project has left a sour taste in my mouth.

At a first glance it looks like a straight search and replace of "pfSense" to "OPNsense", a few alterations of author names on files where they really haven't done anything to it.

I don't like it, at all. I get that Open Source projects are there to be forked if the need/desire requires, but it really feels like they've done a search/replace and slapped a new UI theme on the GUI (easily done imho) and released a build.

I feel like they really should have taken to the time to implement some new ideas, features, enhancements, etc that really set it apart from pfSense before just rebranding it and releasing it. Feels like they just wanted to cash in on the "Commercial Support" and "Professional services".

I hope I'm wrong, and I really do hope they come up with some good ideas and not just a fancy GUI. But I think it'd take me alot to switch. I like new things, but when it comes to the system that essentially runs my whole network, I try to stick to the "if it's not broken, don't fix it" saying.

Cino

@montaro I couldn't agree anymore

Derelict

If you make changes to pfSense, the resulting product CANNOT be called pfSense or anything similar. You can call the result any name you like so long as it is distinct from pfSense. As in earlier points, you can state that it's based on pfSense, forked from pfSense, and so on. Stating facts is fine, but creating an association in the product name is not. This is also necessary to protect the trademark.

Examples:
"pfSomething", or "somethingSense" – NOT OK
"ExampleWall", "FireWidget" -- OK

http://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_sell_pfSense

cough OPNsense cough

IANAL but if I was on a jury I would be inclined to consider you defending "sense" a stronger position than "pf". tcpSense, ipSense, fwSense, etc vs. pfWall, pfEase, pfBarrier, pfPerimiter (?!?) etc. pf existed before the project.

@Derelict:

IANAL but if I was on a jury I would be inclined to consider you defending "sense" a stronger position than "pf". tcpSense, ipSense, fwSense, etc vs. pfWall, pfEase, pfBarrier, pfPerimiter (?!?) etc. pf existed before the project.

You're not a lawyer, but we have IP lawyers (who specialize in trademark) on retainer.

kapara

I would agree that changing the license without warning would cause some alarm. If it is just that you must use the name pfSense then that is not too troubling to me. I think the real concern is whether or not the long term goals of where pfSense is going is of more importance. Many times I have used open source products and to depend on the product and then the company switches gears and offers a stripped down community version and a paid version which has all the features.

I have not read anything leading me to believe this but I also have not read anything contrary to this. I think having another option is good as I really don't see it as being harmful to the pfSense project unless the goal for Netgate is to lock it down and force users to pay for the product. I am not expecting Netgate to disclose what their future plans are for pfSense but not knowing does create a cause of concern for some.

I have been using pfSense for many years and will continue to do so until given a reason not to like limiting the functionality, charging for the software, or forcing me to use Netgate branded hardware only.