On Sun, 20 Jul 2014, Lars Engels wrote:

On Sun, Jul 20, 2014 at 12:18:54PM +0100, krad wrote:
all of that is true, but you are missing the point. Having two versions of
pf on the bsd's at the user level, is a bad thing. It confuses people,
which puts them off. Its a classic case of divide an conquer for other
platforms. I really like the idea of the openpf version, that has been
mentioned in this thread. It would be awesome if it ended up as a supported
linux thing as well, so the world could be rid of iptables. However i guess
thats just an unrealistic dream

And you don't seem to get the point that _someone_ has to do the work.
No one has stepped up so far, so nothing is going to change.

No one with authority has yet said that "If an updated pf were available,
 would be welcomed". Rather they have said "An updated pf would not be
suitable, as it would be incompatible with existing configuration files".
If the latter is indeed the case, there is little incentive for anyone
to go to the effort of porting the newer pf. After all, the reward for
the work is chiefly in glory, and if there is to be no glory, the work
is unlikely to be done.

I do not have a horse in this race.

Daniel Feenberg
freebsd-current@freebsd.org mailing list
To unsubscribe, send any mail to "freebsd-current-unsubscr...@freebsd.org"

Reply via email to