3 ms·

Isn't a linux headless box a great alternative to pfsense for non-commercial use? The problem here seems to be that home users now have to shell out more. If y

by ktta 9y ago

Isn't a linux headless box a great alternative to pfsense for non-commercial use? The problem here seems to be that home users now have to shell out more. If you're going to use OpenVPN and other common software, why not just move to linux side of things? It seems that for home use you wouldn't need any enterprise grade software which I feel is the big advantage of pfSense. Sure pf is great but iptables isn't terrible either. I find that the BSDs are becoming increasingly reluctant to any change that goes against their principles which I sometimes find a tad misplaced.

stock_toaster 9y ago
> I find that the BSDs are becoming increasingly reluctant to > any change that goes against their principles which I > sometimes find a tad misplaced. This seems a bit uncharitable. pfsense is an open source firewall product, made/released by a company that sells support and services. I wouldn't call it "one of the BSDs" any more than I would call say.. Sophos Firewall or Smoothwall as linux distributions. Running a properly configured, headless linux box as a firewall would indeed be a fine choice for those technically capable, similarly so would a FreeBSD or OpenBSD install.
- ktta 9y ago
  I'm not calling it one of the BSDs, but you still have to consider who's running the show. The FreeBSD part behind pfSense is as important as the Debian beind VyOS (although I'm not suggesting VyOS here). If things are completely same from a management/security perspective, then I'd be wrong but it does make a difference when it comes to management, updates, and compatibility etc. Your definition of technically capable is a bit vague. What can a technically capable user do? It can vary from barely being able to use the cli and minimal understanding of basic networking, to being able to compile/tune the kernel by themselves and write drivers in case they are missing.

by ktta 9y ago

stock_toaster 9y ago

> I find that the BSDs are becoming increasingly reluctant to > any change that goes against their principles which I > sometimes find a tad misplaced. This seems a bit uncharitable. pfsense is an open source firewall product, made/released by a company that sells support and services. I wouldn't call it "one of the BSDs" any more than I would call say.. Sophos Firewall or Smoothwall as linux distributions. Running a properly configured, headless linux box as a firewall would indeed be a fine choice for those technically capable, similarly so would a FreeBSD or OpenBSD install.

ktta 9y ago
I'm not calling it one of the BSDs, but you still have to consider who's running the show. The FreeBSD part behind pfSense is as important as the Debian beind VyOS (although I'm not suggesting VyOS here). If things are completely same from a management/security perspective, then I'd be wrong but it does make a difference when it comes to management, updates, and compatibility etc. Your definition of technically capable is a bit vague. What can a technically capable user do? It can vary from barely being able to use the cli and minimal understanding of basic networking, to being able to compile/tune the kernel by themselves and write drivers in case they are missing.