3 ms·

If it's closed source, then what's this: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense ? Genuine question. And wow. https://github.com

If it's closed source, then what's this: https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense ? Genuine question. And wow. https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-04-30-pfSense.md https://github.com/github/dmca/blob/master/2018/2018-04-30-p...

wmf 6y ago
The link says: "You cannot build pfSense®™ 2.4.x from source code. No, not even with the official tools - those will just sabotage you. The repository claimed to be "FreeBSD src with pfSense changes" does not contain the source code of the kernel shipped with pfSense®™ 2.4.x, and other changes done to FreeBSD code are also being selectively ommited from that repository." It's from a few years ago so the situation may have changed. It looks like there's a RHEL/CentOS sort of thing going on here where the code is (mostly?) open but the branding isn't.
- kevans91 6y ago
  I haven't tried it, but this doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Notably, [0] is clearly a pretty up-to-date copy of the stable/12 that they're almost certainly running given some of the recent direct commit references (e.g., patch pulled from [1]) and that it has a wireguard kmod that hasn't actually been ported to this branch upstream. I would guess that pfsense/pfsense should be able to build it, but you probably won't have any luck on !FreeBSD/pfSense. [0] https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=252894 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=252894
  - wolrah 6y ago
    I'm not sure about the kernel alone, but the last time I tried to build the entire pfSense system (a few years ago, but still in the 2.4.x era) using the build.sh in the pfsense/pfsense repo it fell apart due to references to Netgate internal package repositories with no information on how to replicate these. Asking about it in the official subreddit resulted in responses ranging from unhelpful to hostile.
    - kevans91 6y ago
      Ugh, that's unfortunate. =\ After looking at this repo more closely, this really is pretty suboptimal. build.sh is incredibly flexible, but yeah- no documentation on what you'd need to build a non-pfsense branded product. That's pretty weird, given how much of this system seems to be geared towards being generically applicable and has some replacements aimed directly at rebranding some literal occurrences of "pfSense".
      - wolrah 6y ago
        I did see someone linked documentation for how they did a build recently in the pfSense subreddit when this same article was posted there, so I guess it is in fact possible, but the process was certainly nowhere close to straightforward. I really do enjoy the platform, I have dozens of Netgate SG-series devices deployed to clients and they work great, but I do find it hugely disappointing that it seems very clear that Netgate does not want anyone else producing builds of pfSense-derived software even if it's properly rebranded. Their official claims that it's purely about the branding falls apart when you compare what's involved in building "nonSense" compared to Chromium, Iceweasel, etc.

wmf 6y ago

The link says: "You cannot build pfSense®™ 2.4.x from source code. No, not even with the official tools - those will just sabotage you. The repository claimed to be "FreeBSD src with pfSense changes" does not contain the source code of the kernel shipped with pfSense®™ 2.4.x, and other changes done to FreeBSD code are also being selectively ommited from that repository." It's from a few years ago so the situation may have changed. It looks like there's a RHEL/CentOS sort of thing going on here where the code is (mostly?) open but the branding isn't.

kevans91 6y ago
I haven't tried it, but this doesn't seem to be the case anymore. Notably, [0] is clearly a pretty up-to-date copy of the stable/12 that they're almost certainly running given some of the recent direct commit references (e.g., patch pulled from [1]) and that it has a wireguard kmod that hasn't actually been ported to this branch upstream. I would guess that pfsense/pfsense should be able to build it, but you probably won't have any luck on !FreeBSD/pfSense. [0] https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src https://github.com/pfsense/FreeBSD-src [1] https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=252894 https://bugs.freebsd.org/bugzilla/show_bug.cgi?id=252894
- wolrah 6y ago
  I'm not sure about the kernel alone, but the last time I tried to build the entire pfSense system (a few years ago, but still in the 2.4.x era) using the build.sh in the pfsense/pfsense repo it fell apart due to references to Netgate internal package repositories with no information on how to replicate these. Asking about it in the official subreddit resulted in responses ranging from unhelpful to hostile.
  - kevans91 6y ago
    Ugh, that's unfortunate. =\ After looking at this repo more closely, this really is pretty suboptimal. build.sh is incredibly flexible, but yeah- no documentation on what you'd need to build a non-pfsense branded product. That's pretty weird, given how much of this system seems to be geared towards being generically applicable and has some replacements aimed directly at rebranding some literal occurrences of "pfSense".
    - wolrah 6y ago
      I did see someone linked documentation for how they did a build recently in the pfSense subreddit when this same article was posted there, so I guess it is in fact possible, but the process was certainly nowhere close to straightforward. I really do enjoy the platform, I have dozens of Netgate SG-series devices deployed to clients and they work great, but I do find it hugely disappointing that it seems very clear that Netgate does not want anyone else producing builds of pfSense-derived software even if it's properly rebranded. Their official claims that it's purely about the branding falls apart when you compare what's involved in building "nonSense" compared to Chromium, Iceweasel, etc.