----- Original Message ----- > From: "Jim Thompson" <j...@smallworks.com> > > > On Oct 23, 2014, at 4:42 PM, Adam Thompson <athom...@athompso.net> > > wrote: > > > > On 14-10-23 04:29 PM, Chris L wrote: > >> I’m not asking what the changes are - I’m asking if these boxes > >> require a special version of pfSense for maximum performance. > > I can't answer that with 100% certainty, but I believe the > > packaging is tweaked slightly. Whether you call that a "special > > version" or not is up to you... AFAIK the kernel is the same, and > > the pfSense layered code is the same. Netgate may add *more* > > stuff on top of that, I'm not sure - I don't even own one right > > now. > > The kernel is the same. All the patches are in the tree, and all the > code except for what is described next is also in the tree. > > We currently add the ‘tuning’ (or other other platforms such as the > APU, the bits necessary to be able to successfully load and reboot > the system), and, > as of version 2.1.5, the Amazon VPC wizard is in the “Netgate” build, > which is loaded on everything sold via both store.pfsense.com and > store.negate.com. > We can do this because we’re the trademark holder (technically we’re > licensed by the holder, but the point is minutia.)
We all know the "$100 to fix your car, $10 for the hammer, $90 for knowing where to tap" joke. Our time as experts in a discipline is of great value. That's time we didn't spend with our kids, or with our spouse, or pet, or doing something we love besides technical tinkering. Part of the wonders of the "open source" world is that experts share the results of their time with everyone, because it feels great to share. Sometimes those projects become something more than a basement fantasy, and there just isn't enough free time for the not-so-independently-wealthy to squeeze into the opening their hobby made in the market and succeed. This is where you end up sticking your feet in two pools... the open and the corporate. The thing about the corporate is that it can't succeed without some protection. I have nothing but respect for the direction pfSense is going. > > That’s it. > > >> If it’s just sysctl values then it’s not possible to keep it > >> secret. sysctl -a, sysctl -a, diff > > Granted... my point stands, it's not the secrecy, it's the time > > taken to match the values to the hardware. No two systems > > (models) are identical. > > It’s sysctl values. It’s not “secret” if you dig it out, and no > steps were taken to prevent same. If you buy the tools and have the > knowledge, you ‘tune’ the ECU in a car or truck > for more power and/or better milage, too. Some enterprising > individuals sell pre-tuned computers, or a new ‘chip’ with the > changes made to the various lookup tables (MAP .vs RPM, > TPS, etc.) though the factory tends to look askance at these in the > same way that we look askance at individuals who come to us with “I > bought my own Supermicro, and didn’t pay your markup, give me your > bits.” I think we all have the opportunity to show off pfSense on their hardware, our hardware, and everyone wins. It's all about choosing the best tool for the job, and your customer / uncle / friend is going to pat you on the back, not Netgate/ESF et al. The advantage of getting the support and financial backing of the corporate side might require you to mind your wording, but I challenge anyone to take a product to market without any protections and succeed... I'd love to be proven wrong, because that would mean ushering in a new era in commerce. > > >> If it’s a custom kernel, etc, then I have to take waiting for > >> netgate to issue patches into consideration. Now and in the > >> future. > > Perhaps you've forgotten that Netgate/ESF is the pfSense project > > *sponsor* and that all/most (?) of the core developers work for > > Netgate/ESF? > > There are package developers outside Netgate/ESF, but everyone at the > core works for Netgate (technically Rubicon Communications) or ESF. > We’re likely to consolidate this > in the coming weeks, too. > > In many ways you can think of Netgate as the “home of pfSense”. > > > I don't think you'll be waiting very long. I wouldn't be at all > > surprised if the Netgate build gets updated first, in fact. > > Point in fact, the “Netgate build" typically occurs after the, (for > lack of a better term) “community build” occurs. > > > And I do *not* mean that they deliberately wait before releasing > > patches for the generic pfSense build, I just mean that I would > > expect the Netgate update to be available +/- 15 minutes compared > > to the generic pfSense update. > > We try to release in parallel. There is a testing phase of both > that proceeds in parallel, *after* the build is done. > > > I get that Jim rubs a lot of people the wrong way (myself > > included), > > Darn, you’d think that sharing a last name would count for > something... Sticking out your neck exposes it to the (figurative) hatchet. I love this list, pfSense, and Jim Thompson is ok in my book. ;) We all have our opinions based on the data on hand at the time, and it's good to see everyone sharing them. That's the only way we all move forward. Ok, now I have to get back to work ;) > > > but I don't understand the vitriol and/or suspicion directed at > > Netgate, which, after all, is who's paying to keep pfSense free. > > I think some people are waiting for “the other shoe to drop”. For us > to take the pfSense project in a direction similar to what happened > with Vyatta. This is not happening, but everyone seems to love > chatting up conspiracy theories. Fluoride in the water and > chemtrails overhead are evidence of government mind-control > experiments, Paul Mccartney died in 1966, 9/11 was a “false flag” > operation, pfSense is going closed source, and Jim Thompson is > actually a blood thirsty, extra-terrestrial, shapeshifting reptile. > (Paging Alex Jones to the white, courtesy router. Alex Jones to > the white courtesy router, please.) > > I also think that some people are upset that the trademark is > enforced, and they can no longer build their own version of > “pfSense” (software), or sell hardware branded with “pfSense”. > > Finally, I think there is still a segment of the community who views > me with distrust because I put a license agreement and contributor > agreement in front of access to the source code for the pfSense > project. We didn’t articulate the reasons for doing this very > well, and the execution when we did it wasn’t … optimal. But the > source code is still open. All the contributor agreement does is > cover the ‘rules’ in play if you send us a contribution to the > source code (a “patch” or “pull request”), and all the license > agreement really does is put the rules in-play that cover a fork. > (attribution, can’t call it “pfSense”, can’t relicense, etc.) > > Nobody lost anything, but I will always and forevermore be the ahole > for taking the steps. I’ve learned to live with it. Drinking > helps. > > > Jim: maybe the Netgate/ESF branding needs to get splashed all over > > pfSense, to drive home the point? > > Ugh… were you around for the 2.1.5 release with the “Gold” menu > front-and-center (and the resultant shitstorm)? > > We’ve resisted doing this, and are, in-fact, going the other way. > Sometime soon, all the “pfSense” branded hardware will be sold in > the pfSense store(s). > (I say plural, because we are exploring options for having > fulfillment partners in other geographies.) Perhaps there will be a > bit less confusion then. > > > It may be unclear to newbies what the relationship between Netgate, > > ESF, and pfSense is. Even I'm a little bit vague on the finer > > points. > > There are two corporations: > > Rubicon Communications, LLC this is operated as “Netgate”. > Electric Sheep Fencing, LLC, typically shortened to ESF. > > The people employed by these largely work out of the same space. > Some people in one are managed by people who technically work for > the other. I doubt that some of the people inside understand all > the details of this. From the outside, you can think of us as one > big happy family. (Or wonder in silence what it must be like to > work in the same place as Jim Thompson.) > > Jim > > _______________________________________________ > List mailing list > List@lists.pfsense.org > https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list _______________________________________________ List mailing list List@lists.pfsense.org https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
