Scott, I certainly HAVE NOT forgotten this, but remember that we ( the non-core-devs ) sit here for as many hours and read, test, tweak, test, test, and research ourselvs. Your work and dedication has not gone unrecognized (at leaset by me, I ALWAY give credit where credit is due). This is no eacuse for flaming on lists though, we're all in this together "right"? After all, without all of "us" (the community) pfS would NOT be as far along as it is. I just get miffed when I make a VALID suggestion or post a VALID question and get either a snide remark or a flame (and like I said ... my appologies for noise and the *NIX 2 BSD jab).
Just like you Scott, Bill, Chris etc, etc .... I just want and hope for the supper, stable, cost-effective product too. I have been here along-side you all for many months and will continue to support/promote pfS and give the qudos to the dev team and the community for the exceptional efforts put forth to make pfS what it is today. OK, done rambling on now ... said my peace to Bill and ready to get the logging issues and package question I posted again yesterday resolved/answered and move forward. Thanks ALL for your GREAT work (devs, community, Manuel). Regards, -- David L. Strout Engineering Systems Plus, LLC ----- Original Message ----- Subject: Re: [pfSense Support] IPSec enhancements ??s From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [email protected] Date: 01-26-2006 3:15 pm > On 1/26/06, David Strout <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Then my question to you is this .... why haven't > > they been implemented? > > Because nobody has submitted patches? > > > You've / we've all spent a lot of time on the > > product to make it ( and I quote) a business class > > product which "provides all the important features > > of commercial firewall boxes" (BTW, it IS a great > > product, just be open to suggestions for > > improvments). I think not, as most of the > > commercial products out there, [Cisco, NetScreen, > > CheckPoint] to name a few, support most if not all > > of the features I mentioned below, before getting > > flamed as a FUD writer (look in the mirror before > > pitching stones, and do so real research on > > something other than BSD). I'm not sure what FUD > > means, but I can make an educated guess, and I'm > > not sure that there needs to be this level of > > inappropriate and offensive > > communications/responses, especially from a member > > of the core dev team (certainly not very > > professional). > > > > In short ... take of your BSD blinders and look > > around before accusing someone of NOT doing their > > research, certainly when someone make a concerted > > effort to apologize for the noise ... then you > > still feel the need to flame. > > > > BOOOOO .... BTW Google is a great tool!!!!! > > David, I think you have lost sight that we are all volunteers. We do > not get paid for sitting here fielding 100 questions a day. Please > do not forget this. > > Scott > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] > For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] For additional commands, e-mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
