On Feb 14, 2014, at 5:15 AM, Jostein Elvaker Haande wrote:
> On 14 February 2014 11:54, Brian Candler wrote:
>> On 13/02/2014 19:43, Jostein Elvaker Haande wrote:
>>
>> The thing that brand names as Netgear now sells out of the box
>> [..]
>>
>> I welcome Netgear to the pfSense community as a
On 14 February 2014 11:54, Brian Candler wrote:
> On 13/02/2014 19:43, Jostein Elvaker Haande wrote:
>
> The thing that brand names as Netgear now sells out of the box
> [..]
>
> I welcome Netgear to the pfSense community as a most welcome addition,
> and I hope to see similar additions in the tim
On 13/02/2014 19:43, Jostein Elvaker Haande wrote:
The thing that brand names as Netgear now sells out of the box
products with re-imaged pfSense distributions is for me a no brainer.
Not only does it increase the user base of pfSense, meaning that bugs,
performance issues etc are more easily unc
On Thursday, February 13, 2014 09:43:36 PM Jostein Elvaker
Haande wrote:
> The latter exposes not only the core of the product, but
> also the workflow and priorities of those involved in
> the making of pfSense. It's a level of transparency that
> you see more and more of, and for me personally,
On 2/13/2014 8:08 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
No, no, no. Custom hardware-specific images are a good thing - when done by
us, as in the case of Netgate. More when I'm not on my phone.
In the mean time, everyone else has covered the reasoning in more
detail. You want to have a proper default co
In the mean time, everyone else has covered the reasoning in more
detail. You want to have a proper default config in place, so if you
reset to factory defaults, your interface assignments go back to where
they were originally, serial console setup appropriately where
relevant, etc. There also m
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 12:10 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
>
>
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Andrew Hull wrote:
>>
>> Hi List,
>> Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall
>> and FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was customized
>> with Netgat
On 2014-02-13 09:27, David Burgess wrote:
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Hull 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 bran
On 14-02-13 01:44 PM, Jeremy Porter wrote:
I'm might disagree with that, because I'm the one that did that.
You might also that the Netgate auto-update URL, is https:
Most authorized pfSense re-brands, make customizations, include
changes or limits on the package repository.
Speaking with my
On 13 February 2014 17:54, Andrew Hull wrote:
> My knee jerk reaction is that this is A Bad Thing(tm), and I reloaded the
I don't think this is a bad thing at all, I only consider it to be a
sign that pfSense is starting to really get a good foothold in the
market, and something not only somethin
>> 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?
In principle, perhaps, in practice probably not.
I've been using pfSense for awhile now, and buying hardware from Netgate
On Feb 13, 2014, at 11:30 AM, Mathieu Simon (Lists)
wrote:
>
>
> Am 13.02.2014 17:54, schrieb Andrew Hull:
>> [...] I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was
>> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism
>> was set to a Netgate URL.
>>
>> Has this been
I'm might disagree with that, because I'm the one that did that.
You might also that the Netgate auto-update URL, is https:
Most authorized pfSense re-brands, make customizations, include changes
or limits on the package repository.
Speaking with my Netgate hat on (yes I work for both companie
On Feb 13, 2014, at 12:10 PM, Chris Buechler wrote:
> On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Andrew Hull wrote:
> Hi List,
> Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall and
> FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was customized with
> Netgate branding
On 2/13/2014 11:54 AM, Andrew Hull wrote:
> Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall
> and FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was
> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism
> was set to a Netgate URL.
>
> Has this
On Thursday, February 13, 2014, Andrew Hull wrote:
> Hi List,
> Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall
> and FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was
> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism was
> set to a Netg
Am 13.02.2014 17:54, schrieb Andrew Hull:
> [...] I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was
> customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism
> was set to a Netgate URL.
>
> Has this been discussed on the list before?
I don't think often for what I can remember.
On Thu, Feb 13, 2014 at 9:54 AM, Andrew Hull 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
pf
Hi List,
Having purchased several pfSense devices assembled by Netgate (m1n1wall
and FW-7541), I've noticed that the pfSense pre-install image was
customized with Netgate branding and the firmware auto-update mechanism
was set to a Netgate URL.
Has this been discussed on the list before?
My
19 matches
Mail list logo
