Let's get some facts straight:
False: "the board, case, SD all cost about $145 if you buy them from PCEngines."
PC Engines doesn't sell SD cards, so we'll leave those out of the discussion
for now.
List price on an APU from PC Engines: $136 (2GB) or $155 (4GB)
List price on case from PC Engi
Actually the margin is more like $250 - the board, case, SD all cost about $145
if you buy them from PCEngines.
My fleecing comment is based on the lack of a statement that says if you don’t
want the support you can look at this model, or give an option to opt out of
the support. Also calling it
I see a few things going on here:
>From the Netgate site, the difference between the APU1C and the APU1C4 DIY
kits is 2GB vs 4GB.
The Kits are $179 and $199 and include the board, a case and power plug.
The kit from PCEngines is just the board (I don't see any that says it
comes with a plug or a
Sorry, that was at our wonderful list mom. I should have noted it that way.
On Jul 22, 2014, at 22:18, Chris Bagnall wrote:
> On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a
>> public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom”
It is my believe that we all are on this list, in this discussion,
because we have a requirement, desire and/or need of a solid network
security solution. I applaud the community as a whole for making pfSense
a product for that is available for the societal masses. #respect
"Give me your low TTL,
On 23/7/14 4:11 am, Ryan Coleman wrote:
I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a
public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have
sent it privately instead of publicly.
I can't work out if the above is directed at me or Jim.
(I
::applause::
I may have fired off the message in a fit of frustration but you made it a
public statement - if you wanted to be the “mom” and handle it you should have
sent it privately instead of publicly.
—
Ryan
On Jul 22, 2014, at 21:15, Chris Bagnall wrote:
> On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thom
Neither do accusations that a discussion that is VERY MUCH related to this list
has no place on this list.
Just because it does not relate to what YOU use pfsense for doesn’t mean it
does not belong. If that were the case most of the emails I get on a daily
basis have no place on this list.
Th
I am. I have.
I'm trying to be patient and professional.
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:47, Sean Colins wrote:
>
> Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?
>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>>
>> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on to
On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:30, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>> Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets.
> What's the difference, in practical terms?
First: Rangeley has an integrated i354 10/100/1000 quad Ethernet MAC. Bay
Trail requires one to add Ethernet
Second: Rangeley has a high-speed crypto co
On 23/7/14 2:10 am, Jim Thompson wrote:
Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
Please stay on topic.
Respectfully, I disagree.
Given the APU is - as the de facto successor to the ALIX - likely to be
a piece of hardware used in a lot of new pfSense installs, discussion
about its me
Who is the list mom and why is he/she not responding to this?
On Jul 22, 2014, at 6:12 PM, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you.
>
>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Very little if this thread is related to pfSe
Ryan,
Profanity and personal attacks have no place on this list.
-- Jim
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:12, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
> Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you.
>
>
>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson wrote:
>>
>> Very little if this thread is
Look fuck nut: branded and shipped hardware is 100% on topic. Thank you.
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 20:10, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
> Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
>
> Please stay on topic.
>
> -- Jim
>
>>> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall wrote:
>>>
>>> On 22/7/14
Very little if this thread is related to pfSense.
Please stay on topic.
-- Jim
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:32, Chris Bagnall wrote:
>
>> On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>> I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
>> allows for adequate thermal co
On 22/7/14 11:17 pm, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
the case?
The one I've just
protocol in the rule is any. here's what the rule looks like:
Action:Pass
Interface: LAN
TCP/IP: IPv4
protocol: any
source: Type: network, address: 192.168.0.0/24
destination: any
On Jul 22, 2014, at 4:16 PM, Justin Edmands wrote:
> It's most likely your specified Protocol in the "allow" rul
Thanks, Holger!
I didn't notice this page. So it looks like it's some kind of thermal paste
allows for adequate thermal conductivity between the CPU/south bridge and
the aluminum heat spreader, but the heat spreader is in dry contact with
the case? I find it less than adequate, but let's hope that
It's most likely your specified Protocol in the "allow" rule you have
set. Open the rule that you believe should allow the traffic and
change the rule from TCP, UDP, TCP/UDP to say any.
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 5:30 PM, Khurram Khan wrote:
> Hi Team,
>
> Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing wi
http://pcengines.ch/apucool.htm
Holger
Am 22.07.2014 23:31 schrieb "Nickolai Leschov" :
> Yes, there is a transfer "pad".
>
> What is this pad made of: some metal or is this a thermal shim, which is a
> sort of paste?
>
> ___
> List mailing list
> List@
>
> Yes, there is a transfer "pad".
What is this pad made of: some metal or is this a thermal shim, which is a
sort of paste?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Hi Team,
Trying to figure out an issue i'm facing with pfsense 2.1.4. I'm routing
192.168.0.0/24 via pfsense. this block resides on a linux machine. within the
internal LAB if i ping to 192.168.0.5 , all the machines on the LAN can ping
successfully. However, if i ping from the linux machine ,
>
> Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets.
What's the difference, in practical terms?
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list
Do you happen to have an image of this?
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 16:28, Jim Thompson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>
>>> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case
>> How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal
>> i
On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case
> How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal
> interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum case?
Yes, there is a transfer "p
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 17:19, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>
> I wonder why they wouldn't just build the board with some appropriate Atom
> CPU?
:-)
> And maybe even more performant, to boot? E3815, probably?
Bay Trail? Why? That's for tablets.
C2xx8 more likely. IJS...__
>
> Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case
How does the CPU connect to the aluminum case? Is there some thermal
interface involved? Maybe an interface between CPU heatsink and aluminum
case?
Mine get toasty but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the
> case if you
Just like the others: dissipation through the aluminum case. Mine get toasty
but they haven't cooked yet. You could cut a fan in the case if you needed to.
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 14:29, Nickolai Leschov wrote:
>
> The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure
> [s
The difference is not $200, but about $100 with 8GB Sandisk Extreme Secure
[sic!] SDHC card included.
1. What's *secure* about this card? I suppose it's a regular SDHC one.
2. I would like to pay less, but I'm worried about assembling it right with
regards to cooling. Can anyone clarify how is co
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:58, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>
> I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate.
Perhaps you should ask sa...@netgate.com
Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
https://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 10:56, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to
>> fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built
>> and tested?
>> htt
I asked the differences in the two line items from netgate.
> On Jul 22, 2014, at 9:56, Eugen Leitl wrote:
>
>> On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
>> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to
>> fleece people for an extra $200 by pac
On 2014-07-22 11:40, Ryan Coleman wrote:
Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying
to fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing
together built and tested?
http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx
PC Engines o
On Tue, Jul 22, 2014 at 02:40:44PM +, Ryan Coleman wrote:
> Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to
> fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built
> and tested?
> http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
> http://store.netgate
Is there a difference between the 4 and the 1C4? Is Netgate just trying to
fleece people for an extra $200 by packaging the entire thing together built
and tested?
http://store.netgate.com/kit-APU1C4.aspx
http://store.netgate.com/APU4.aspx
PC Engines only has the APU1C/APU1C4 listed with the sa
35 matches
Mail list logo
