Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Thinker Rix

On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:

So asking the question is stupid


On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the 
question in stroking their own ego.


On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:

Otherwise: get off my lawn.
I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.
Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I will 
kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with.
Otherwise: STFU.
Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark. 


The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a 
co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your 
official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian, 
plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, 
censors and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of 
himself and any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any 
constructive discussion culture.


To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such 
an ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key 
position in the project that creates the security product that we use 
for protecting our networks.


I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, 
but it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his 
professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication.


Bye.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)

2013-10-12 Thread Jens Kuehnel
Am 12.10.13 00:35, schrieb Walter Parker:
Hi,

 So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would I
 have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to completion
 without filling the partitions?
How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it is.
Can't tell you where the exact speperation is.

The problem also occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade,
so the empty rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will
try to figure out where the limit is.

CU
Jens

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Oliver Hansen
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.comwrote:

 On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:

 So asking the question is stupid


 On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:

 IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question
 in stroking their own ego.


 On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:

 Otherwise: get off my lawn.
 I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.
 Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I
 will kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with.
 Otherwise: STFU.

 Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark.


 The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a
 co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your
 official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian,
 plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, censors
 and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of himself and
 any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive
 discussion culture.

 To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such an
 ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key position in
 the project that creates the security product that we use for protecting
 our networks.

 I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, but
 it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his
 professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication.

 Bye.


I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do agree.
I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) and have
always been impressed with the professionalism of most members who write
and especially those affiliated with the project. I have been quite
surprised and disappointed in the attitude and tone coming from Jim
Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT is what reflects poorly on
the project.

-Oliver
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson

On Oct 12, 2013, at 7:20 AM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.com wrote:

 On 2013-10-11 22:33, Walter Parker wrote:
 Yes, you have been informed correctly. There are more than 2. According the 
 World Atlas (http://www.worldatlas.com/nations.htm#.UlhOHVFDsnY) the number 
 is someone between 189 and 196.
 
 No kidding! ;-)
 
 But you did not answer the question asked: Name the country that you would 
 move the project to and why you believe that country would do a better job?
 
 Why should *I* name it and why should I present ready solutions for an idea 
 another community member brought up? Why should anybody be in a position to 
 present ready solutions at this point? How about having a fruitful discussion 
 and find solutions together?

There is no reason to build a house on sand.

There is no fruitful discussion to be had when the premise is patently false.

 Then because the USA can't be trusted, who is going to replace the Americans 
 on the project?
 
 You are mixing things up here. Just because the USA invented their tyrannous 
 Uniting and Strengthening America by Providing Appropriate Tools Required to 
 Intercept and Obstruct Terrorism Act, for which they perversely coined the 
 euphemistic term Patriot Act and there fore can not be trusted anymore for 
 hosting anything there, why should the Americans be replaced?!?!?
 
 The name and logo are owned by an American company.
 
 I guess, that is true, i.e. that ESF registered pfSense and it's log as a 
 brand name.

You seem upset at this.  Why?

Instead of some kooky conspiracy theory that ESF could be tortured or pressured 
to weaken pfSense, is this the *real* issue you have?

 I doubt they want to give them up to a foreign company owned by non-Americans
 
 Nobody suggested that. Try thinking a bit more outside the box!
 For instance: A non-profit foundation could be founded in a country outside 
 the USA, and the brand, hosting of the project, etc. be transferred to that 
 company. A board would be elected for this foundation who just a few basic 
 things annually to keep the foundation running.
 ESF on the other side would be released of a great threat! They could 
 continue offering their pfSense services to their customers as usual, but 
 from now on nobody could come and force them to do things to pfSense since 
 they have nothing to do with it”.

You seem upset that ESF controls the project.  Why?

 just to make it harder for the American government to pressure the project.
 
 Incorporating pfSense and bringing it out of the reach of US-domestic 
 jurisdiction would not make it harder but impossible to pressure the 
 project.

You have provided no explanation (other than “rubber hoses”) for what form that 
“pressure” would take.

 If the rest of world wants to fork the project because of concerns about the 
 US government, fine, but I don't think you will get buy in from ESF [the 
 American company that owns the rights to the name pfSense].
 
 Why to fork the code base?! No one suggested that - and no one suggested to 
 do things without - or even against - the key people of the ESF. Right the 
 opposite. It would even protect the ESF!
 
 Once again, name some names. Who do you consider more trustworthy?
 
 I am not Jesus to hand solutions to the community on a silver platter

though point in fact, Jesus didn’t hand anyone a solution.


 (but surely would be available for a *constructive* and *well-disposed*, 
 *amicable* discussion to find solutions together!). I know of quite a lot of 
 countries that seem interesting for a closer analysis for this cause and 
 surely would propose one or another in such a constructive discussion.
 
 Generally, what Adrian proposed makes only sense, if the community - 
 including ESF - understands the threat and decides to act proactively to 
 fight this threat.

“The community” doesn’t own the copyright on the code, nor the trademarks to 
the names used.  Those belong to ESF.

Further, you’ve hypothesized about a ‘threat’ without providing any factual 
basis for same.  The term for this form of argument is “conspiracy theory”.

Since pfSense is open source (specifically, the BSD license), “the community” 
(or rather “a community”) could take the decision to fork the code and create 
their own solution.  It’s been attempted a couple times, but none of these have 
flourished.  While I don’t encourage forks (it’s typically not good for either 
project), occasionally they work out (at least for a while), I don’t go out of 
my way to inhibit those who wish to fork.

However, in any case, such a community would be prohibited from naming the 
result “pfSense”.

 But since 33% of the ESF - namely Jim Thompson

You greatly inflate my ownership interest here.

 - prefers bullying, insulting, frightening and muzzling anybody who brings up 
 the threat that we are facing, trying to strike dead any thought as soon as 
 it comes up (strange, isn't it?),

Not as strange as someone randomly showing up one day, hiding 

Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Adrian Wenzel
- Original Message - 

 From: Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com
 To: pfSense support and discussion list@lists.pfsense.org
 Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 11:23:56 AM
 Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

 On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix 
 thinke...@rocketmail.com  wrote:

  On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
 

   So asking the question is stupid
  
 

  On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
 

   IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the
   question in stroking their own ego.
  
 

  On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:
 

   Otherwise: get off my lawn.
  
 

   I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.
  
 
   Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later
   continues,
   I will kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt
   with.
  
 
   Otherwise: STFU.
  
 

   Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and
   trademark.
  
 

  The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that
  as
  a co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense -
  and your official communication unfortunately shows that you are a
  vulgarian, plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults,
  threatens, bullys, censors and muzzles other community members,
  totally lacking control of himself and any professional business
  manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive discussion culture.
 

  To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that
  such an ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a
  key position in the project that creates the security product that
  we use for protecting our networks.
 

  I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with
  you, but it might be good if you would learn a lesson from him
  concerning his professionalism, seriousness and manners in his
  official communication.
 

  Bye.
 
 I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do
 agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading)
 and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most
 members who write and especially those affiliated with the project.
 I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and
 tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT
 is what reflects poorly on the project.

I totally disagree.  I respect people who give their opinion outright.  We can 
flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... and 
all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more convoluted and 
pointless discussions.  I've been a part of the open source community for over 
20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, well-intentioned 
individuals who have many irons in the fire.  We know the value of our time, 
and thus respect the value of others' time as well.  Our projects are not a 
place for discussions that can have no resolution: politics, religion, general 
conspiracy theories.

I'm behind Jim on this.

Regards,
Adrian
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Eugen Leitl
On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 01:41:40PM -0400, Adrian Wenzel wrote:

  I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do
  agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading)
  and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most
  members who write and especially those affiliated with the project.
  I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and
  tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT
  is what reflects poorly on the project.
 
 I totally disagree.  I respect people who give their opinion outright.  We 
 can flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... 
 and all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more 
 convoluted and pointless discussions.  I've been a part of the open source 
 community for over 20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, 
 well-intentioned individuals who have many irons in the fire.  We know the 
 value of our time, and thus respect the value of others' time as well.  Our 
 projects are not a place for discussions that can have no resolution: 
 politics, religion, general conspiracy theories.
 
 I'm behind Jim on this.

I think the points of view on all sides have been now been 
sufficiently vented, and we can agree that the differences
are irreconcilable and the thread can be now laid to rest.

So let's all agree to disagree, and make optimal use
of pfSense, under above circumstances.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Oliver Hansen
- Original Message -
From: Adrian Wenzel adr...@lostland.net
To: pfSense support and discussion list@lists.pfsense.org
Sent: Saturday, October 12, 2013 10:41:40 AM
Subject: Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

snip
 
 I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do
 agree. I have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading)
 and have always been impressed with the professionalism of most
 members who write and especially those affiliated with the project.
 I have been quite surprised and disappointed in the attitude and
 tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week and in my opinion THAT
 is what reflects poorly on the project.

I totally disagree.  I respect people who give their opinion outright.  We can 
flop about and sugar coat everything, try to make everyone feel fuzzy... and 
all that does is lead to misunderstandings and openings for more convoluted and 
pointless discussions.  I've been a part of the open source community for over 
20 years, and mostly we're a group of free thinking, well-intentioned 
individuals who have many irons in the fire.  We know the value of our time, 
and thus respect the value of others' time as well.  Our projects are not a 
place for discussions that can have no resolution: politics, religion, general 
conspiracy theories.

I'm behind Jim on this.

Regards,
Adrian


But notice how you agreed with Jim without using any personal attacks? I have 
no problem with that. It is completely possible to give your opinion outright 
about a *TOPIC* without attacking the person or threatening them. Jim's latest 
response actually does this pretty well and attacks the facts instead of the 
person. I'll let this go now but I felt it had to be said.

-Oliver
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Chris L

 On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:
 
 I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.

Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right.
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Bob Gustafson

+1

On 10/12/2013 12:41 PM, Adrian Wenzel wrote:

I'm behind Jim on this.


___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


[pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update

2013-10-12 Thread Thinker Rix

Hello all,

I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the Auto update feature in the 
web UI, which worked flawlessly.


When studying the Upgrade Guide 
(https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I 
could not find any information about it.
Is there a way I can update the guide myself? Otherwise maybe someone 
with writing rights to the CMS wants to update the manual.


Cheers
Thinker Rix

P.S. Maybe an update to this page would be convenient, too: 
https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_upgrade_my_pfSense_through_the_web_interface%3F


___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Upgrade Guide: Needs update for Auto Update

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson

On Oct 12, 2013, at 3:33 PM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.com wrote:

 Hello all,
 
 I just performed an upgrade to 2.1 via the Auto update feature in the web 
 UI, which worked flawlessly.
 
 When studying the Upgrade Guide 
 (https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Upgrade_Guide) prior the upgrade I could 
 not find any information about it.
 Is there a way I can update the guide myself? Otherwise maybe someone with 
 writing rights to the CMS wants to update the manual.
 
 Cheers
 Thinker Rix
 
 P.S. Maybe an update to this page would be convenient, too: 
 https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Can_I_upgrade_my_pfSense_through_the_web_interface%3F


My immediate suggestion is to edit a copy of the page (it’s a wiki, so “view 
source”), perform a ‘diff’ and send the result to coreteam-at-pfsense-dot-org.

Jim
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Jim Thompson

On Oct 12, 2013, at 1:35 PM, Chris L c...@viptalk.net wrote:

 
 On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:
 
 I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.
 
 Nice position to take, except Alex Jones was right.

Sigh.  As much as this doesn’t belong on the pfsense list…

I actually know Alex, or did, 13 year ago.   I got friendly enough with him 
back in the mid-late 90s that we had each other’s cell phone numbers.

Back then Jamie and I were involved with Fringeware.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FringeWare_Review
http://www.austinchronicle.com/issues/vol16/issue26/screens.fringeware.html

Fringeware became an advertiser on Alex Jones' radio show (on KLBJ, before he 
got booted).

On the front-end, I was a respected advertiser.  Meanwhile, others associated 
with Fringeware were culture-jamming him on the back-end. the result: #discordia

Oh, the memories this brings back.  (As you’ll see, the FBI showed up to demand 
something, didn’t have a warrant, and was shown the sidewalk.)

http://www.wingtv.net/thorn2006/jarhead.html
http://www.austinchronicle.com/news/2000-07-14/77932/

Clayton, btw is a dear friend.  Easily one of the most brilliant people I’ve 
ever known.  I hope he speaks at my funeral.

Other fun was had at Fringeware.  We supported the Yes Men 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men)  We actually hosted their website, 
as well as that of RTmark for a period in the late 90s on the same machine used 
for smallworks.com (which was originally the corporation behind the firewall 
named “Netgate”), fringeware.com, etc.

One of their pranks was that they setup a website named www.gwbush.com. 
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Yes_Men#George_W._Bush  
http://theyesmen.org/hijinks/gwbush http://www.rtmark.com/bush.html)  which 
resulted in Bush’s famous There ought to be limits to freedom,”  quote.

http://www.rtmark.com/bushpr2.html

The great untold story on this is that all these websites were hosted in a 
shitty office building on Shoal Creek Blvd, one floor up from the then offices 
of Karl Rove  Associates” even as they fought to shutdown gwbush.com.  The 
#irony was delicious, and they never succeeded. :-)

Anyway, you might want to study up on STRATFOR, or  Mary Maroney, who was the 
editor and chief of Infowars magazine until earlier this year.
Maroney formerly worked for Stratfor and Parker Media here in Austin.  If you 
don’t know who they are, then I suggest more research on your part.

Have fun, but be careful when you enter the rabbit hole.   Snowden and Manning 
are both late-comers to the party:

http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2011/05/23/110523fa_fact_mayer?currentPage=all
http://www.technologyreview.com/news/519661/nsas-own-hardware-backdoors-may-still-be-a-problem-from-hell/
http://cryptome.org/nsa-ssl-email.htm
http://news.cnet.com/8301-31921_3-20017671-281.html
http://www.wired.com/images_blogs/threatlevel/2013/09/15-shumow.pdf (see also: 
http://www.wired.com/threatlevel/?p=85661)
http://arstechnica.com/security/2013/01/secret-backdoors-found-in-firewall-vpn-gear-from-barracuda-networks/
http://dl.packetstormsecurity.net/papers/general/my_research1.pdf
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/summary?doi=10.1.1.154.825 / 
http://www.cs.ucf.edu/~czou/research/Chipset%20Backdoor-AsiaCCS09.pdf  (now 
consider all the cheerleading for Intel Ethernet chips on the various pfSense 
lists…)

Jim


___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] Alix Update 2.0.3 to 2.1 fails with 11 interfaces (/var full)

2013-10-12 Thread Jens Kühnel
Hi again,

 So, if I have an ALIX that I would like to upgrade, how much would
 I have to increase /tmp and /var by to have the upgrade run to
 completion without filling the partitions?
 How many Interfaces do you have. With 5 it is no problem with 11 it
 is. Can't tell you where the exact separation is. The problem also
 occurs when the RRD data is delete before the upgrade, so the empty
 rrd files are to big, when 11 interfaces are used. I will try to
 figure out where the limit is.

I checked it tonight. The limit is 4 additional opt interfaces (6 all
together). With more the /var on a normal NanoBSD installation will get
full.
Could someone confirm this and update the website?

Thanks
CU
Jens
___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list


Re: [pfSense] naive suggestion: conform to US laws

2013-10-12 Thread Paul Mather
On Oct 12, 2013, at 11:23 AM, Oliver Hansen oliver.han...@gmail.com wrote:

 On Sat, Oct 12, 2013 at 4:10 AM, Thinker Rix thinke...@rocketmail.com wrote:
 On 2013-10-09 19:38, Jim Thompson wrote:
 So asking the question is stupid
 
 On 2013-10-09 19:50, Jim Thompson wrote:
 IMO, this bullshit thread only serves to assist those asking the question in 
 stroking their own ego.
 
 On 2013-10-12 01:40, Jim Thompson wrote:
 Otherwise: get off my lawn.
 I'm not willing to endure this uninformed Alex Jonesian crapfest.
 Now that I'm back on US soil, I promise that if the later continues, I will 
 kill the thread. People who hijack threads will be dealt with.
 Otherwise: STFU.
 
 Nor will I endure the besmirching of pfSense's good name and trademark. 
 
 The only one who is besmirching pfSense here is: you - given that as a 
 co-owner of ESF you are an official representative of pfSense - and your 
 official communication unfortunately shows that you are a vulgarian, 
 plebeian, obscene, scurrilous goon, who insults, threatens, bullys, censors 
 and muzzles other community members, totally lacking control of himself and 
 any professional business manners whatsoever, let alone any constructive 
 discussion culture.
 
 To me it feels highly awkward and it is unsettling me a lot, that such an 
 ill-mannered, shady and dubious roughneck like you holds a key position in 
 the project that creates the security product that we use for protecting our 
 networks.
 
 I have no idea why highly respected Chris Buechler partnered with you, but it 
 might be good if you would learn a lesson from him concerning his 
 professionalism, seriousness and manners in his official communication.
 
 Bye.
 
 I can't say I agree with Thinker Rix on everything but on this I do agree. I 
 have been on this list for many years (mostly just reading) and have always 
 been impressed with the professionalism of most members who write and 
 especially those affiliated with the project. I have been quite surprised and 
 disappointed in the attitude and tone coming from Jim Thompson this last week 
 and in my opinion THAT is what reflects poorly on the project.

It may be that Jim simply saw what looked like a sock puppet come onto the list 
and start spreading FUD  about ESF and pfSense.  Normally, when you see what 
you consider to be a troll, the usually response is don't feed the troll and 
ignore the thread until it runs out of fuel.  I guess the response is 
different, though, when someone is directing FUD at your company.  Then, rather 
than annoyance and bruised egos, the damage can be more real and a more robust 
response might be warranted.

It's up to Jim how he expresses himself.  Given that Thinker Rix was doing a 
remarkable job of impersonating a troll (IMHO), I think the blunt approach is 
the pragmatic logical endpoint of that dialogue.  It's sad, but dealing with 
trolls is a sad business. :-(

Cheers,

Paul.

___
List mailing list
List@lists.pfsense.org
http://lists.pfsense.org/mailman/listinfo/list