On 2014-02-13 09:27, David Burgess wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Hull <l...@coffeebreath.org> wrote:
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?
My first reaction is that the branding is a good thing. Netgate brings
pfsense to folks who in many cases would not touch free software, but
just want something that works out of the box. I've recommended the
m1n1wall many times. As for the update URL, I'm a little surprised,
but maybe they're just trying to track stats.
I'd be a little disappointed if they didn't use their own auto-update
URL, since this would mean customers would end up on stock pfSense after
an update, rather than Netgate's customized version, negating any
tweaking Netgate may have done to make pfSense work seamlessly on their
hardware.
This seems like a good thing to me, and arguably the whole point of
being open source and BSD licensed. Reading the other messages on the
list, this arrangement definitely seems mutually beneficial for both
pfSense and Netgate.
--
Dave Warren
http://www.hireahit.com/
http://ca.linkedin.com/in/davejwarren
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
