>> My knee jerk reaction is that this is A Bad Thing(tm), and I reloaded the >> devices with images from ESF. Does anyone here have a strong opinion one way >> or the other?
In principle, perhaps, in practice probably not. I've been using pfSense for awhile now, and buying hardware from Netgate for about as long. I realize that letting someone else load the software is a potentially huge security hole (I certainly don't reimage all of the PCs I buy from major manufacturers). The impression I get is that Netgate wants to succeed as a business and pfSense wants to succeed as well, so while possible, it is unlikely that anything fishy is going on. If anyone is up to no good, someone else can uncover the conspiracy–I have neither the time nor ability. Ultimately I started buying the Alix hardware with the preloaded images to save time. The other benefit is that someone else assembles the box, and tests overall function before it leaves the factory. I don't have to discover failed equipment at the last minute. The one practical thing that I have found is that the Netgate skin does make it harder to configure VPN tunnels… something to do with the way the skin was built. Switching to the pfSense default resolves the issue. This may have been fixed already. At the end of the day, I like Netgate as a vendor and spend money with them when I can. I trust them as much as anyone can trust a business, and will continue to buy their pre-imaged PF boxes. I have no affiliation with Netgate or the pfSense organization beyond being a happy customer. Jeremy On Feb 13, 2014, at 8:24 AM, Jim Pingle wrote: > On 2/13/2014 11:54 AM, Andrew Hull wrote: >> Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall >> and FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was >> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism >> was set to a Netgate URL. >> >> Has this been discussed on the list before? > > I believe it's been discussed before. > >> My knee jerk reaction is that this is A Bad Thing(tm), and I reloaded >> the devices with images from ESF. Does anyone here have a strong opinion >> one way or the other? > > It's actually a really good thing in this case. We build the images for > them, and they are tailored to work well on their hardware. It's best to > use the images for the specific model of hardware to ensure you get the > best performance/experience. Part of this is the "pfSense Certified" > program, and currently Netgate is the only hardware supplier with any > devices that can state that qualification. > > Some other companies build their own images and such but don't give back > to the project (or do so minimally, if at all) so there are some to > watch out for. Netgate supports ESF/pfSense significantly, so if you > want to support the project, support them. > > Jim > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
