One nit: yes, I can sell something called "pfSense", as that's the
freely-downloadable software under a (IIRC) BSD license.
I can't sell something called "NetGate".
I can't produce a derivative work and call it pfSense. (This is a gray area,
admittedly.)
But, at least here, I'm quite sure I can install pfSense on some random
hardware and still call it pfSense.
Having said that, if there's a high-throughput hardware option that's fully
supported and tested and optimized, I don't know why I would *sell* anything
else.
I'll continue to install pfSense in VMs and on existing repurposed hardware,
but that's an entirely different market segment anyway, and all I'm selling is
my time.
-Adam
On October 23, 2014 11:06:42 AM CDT, Jim Thompson <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>> On Oct 23, 2014, at 5:18 AM, Zia Nayamuth <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>>
>> Lots of suggestions on the hardware, but I see nobody mention
>anything based around the new and much more powerful Avoton platform.
>The platform is officially supported, and the pfSense store has
>hardware based on it (looks to be the Supermicro 5018A-FTN4,
>
>It is. The FW-7551 runs a two core version of the same SoC.
>
>The SoC in both is based on Rangeley, which is like Avoton, but more
>Ethernets and a crypto core named "QuickAssist".
>
>We have a line of similar hardware coming out early next year. You
>can see the beginnings of same on the Netgate site. Don't stress about
>the dev board pricing, it's far higher than production boards / systems
>will be.
>
>This will be the hardware that pfSense is tested on, and released for.
>Other platforms will continue to work, but if you want to run the
>solution that the pfSense team uses, develops for, and tests on, look
>in the store.
>
>Before someone accuses (because this always comes up), we don't cripple
>other solutions (witness the AES-NI acceleration available to all in
>pfSense version 2.2), but we do polish things we sell. When we decided
>to sell the C2758 (5018A-FTN4), we made sure all the Ethernets worked
>(this was released in 2.1.1) and did some tuning such that the platform
>worked well using pfSense 2.1.x.
>
>We don't release the tuning info, and, incredibly, a couple people a
>month write in demanding it.
>
>Anyway, the point is, the community is still free to run pfSense
>software on a given platform, but, as was always true, YMMV with
>platforms we don't support.
>
>Someone asked in the blog if we would be enabling the crypto part on
>the Watchguard he had purchased on eBay.
>
>The answer is no. Not only because the hardware is slower than a
>software-only solution on a modern cpu, but also because SafeNet (the
>company that made that part) no longer supports them, nor is the
>technical documentation available.
>
>And then there is the main reason: We don't have infinite time and
>other resources.
>
>Also, while the end user can change things to enable or even optimize a
>given platform choice, load additional packages, etc., nobody can
>distribute the result and call it "pfSense". Simple trademark law
>demands same.
>
>Anyway, the point is, things we don't sell aren't on developers desks,
>and are not in the test rack, and thus, not exercised by the test
>harness.
>
>Jim
>
>_______________________________________________
>List mailing list
>[email protected]
>https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
--
Sent from my Android device with K-9 Mail. Please excuse my brevity.
_______________________________________________
List mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
