4 ms·
I used to use this until I got fed-up with impedance mismatches between `pf` and the PfSense web GUI. Switched to an OpenBSD base installation a few years ago
by georgia_peach 5y ago
I used to use this until I got fed-up with impedance mismatches between `pf` and the PfSense web GUI. Switched to an OpenBSD base installation a few years ago and haven't looked back.
pf.conf is very user-friendly, the BSD docs for it are great, and it's nice being able to put everything directly under source control. Diffing individual conf files is a lot prettier than those massive PFSense XMLs.
- paulnpace 5y agoThe problem I arrive at is I need non-tech peoples to fix problems without my being onsite. CLI support over the phone is a non-starter. Also, that XML file works forever, as best I can tell. Just for testing, I've installed backups from 7 years ago and they load just fine, which is also something a non-tech people can perform, even without calling me.
- georgia_peach 5y agoMy experience has been that taking away the noob interface reduces the number of incidents. How quickly a little sleuthing will turn an "I didn't change anything!" into "But, I didn't think that would make a difference." If it's something extra-special important, a POTS line and a modem make an excellent plan-B.
- paulnpace 5y ago> My experience has been that taking away the noob interface reduces the number of incidents. And this doesn't also reduce the number of customers?
- georgia_peach 5y agoI'm in the software business, not IT. Having it quietly work for years on end is a win for me.