next »

[freebee]

Hi again,
i see /home/pfsense/tools/packages/freenas and i like to know if have some documentation about it or how implement it in pfsense dev (pfsense 1.2, freebsd 6_3 branch.)

[GruensFroeschli]

It pretty simple:
You dont install FreeNAS on pfSense.

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,9826.0.html
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,5111.0.html

[freebee]

i have searched, but just in devel forum. Thank's.

[marahn]

It pretty simple:
You dont install FreeNAS on pfSense.

http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,9826.0.html
http://forum.pfsense.org/index.php/topic,5111.0.html

Since this is Opensource why on earth do you make a reply like this. It boggles the mind.
It is obvious that the core user segment of pfsense is homeusers with one machine turned on at home. No wonder they want to combine the services. The alternative is that  you have to run both under some form of virtualized environment.

I have been thinking about creating the package and detailing how to implement freenas or similar into pfsense, I know that the poster and I am not the only ones wanting this functionality out of pfSense.

[GruensFroeschli]

It is obvious that the core user segment of pfsense is homeusers with one machine turned on at home.

This is where you're wrong!
And why do you think opensource is only for homeusers?

If you read on http://pfSense.com

This project started in 2004 as a fork of the m0n0wall project, but focused towards full PC installations rather than the embedded hardware focus of m0n0wall. pfSense also offers an embedded image for Compact Flash based installations, however it is not our primary focus.

The main segment of pfSense are bigger installations and NOT embedded installs
--> homeusers would use embedded installs.

[mcrane]

If its developed as a package then it is completely optional. Only those who want it will use it. Those with the most security need will not install it or they will put another pfSense firewall in front of it.

[HKPolice]

I get a sense that maybe some of the big corporations have something to do with this 'anti FreeNAS' development trend. Think about it, there is no need to spend thousands on a NAS box + thousands on a high end router when a $500 PC can do both with the same or more features using pfsense + FreeNAS.

I'm sure it's not HARD to implement freenas as a package for pfsense but none of the developers care. It's like they're being paid to slow down development because all this free software is threatening the big IT corporations.

[GruensFroeschli]

If you seriously feel this way then you obviously never implemented a secure network or thought about what makes a system secure/nonsecure.

It would probably be good if you read a book about network security like this http://www.springer.com/math/cse/book/978-0-387-95213-0
or visit a class at an university that covers this topic.

[mcrane]

More things on your firewall equals more code and therefore a larger security risk.

Environments where there is critical, private and/or valuable things on the computers makes security very important. An environment such as this would be crazy to run a file server on the firewall.

Some home environments where there is nothing critical, private, or valuable on the computers this may not be  much of a concern. But you still need to prevent the computer from being controlled as a zombie from those that would use it to stage large scale attacks.

The slow development of many open source projects can be blamed on the fact that the project is often done during developers free time. Also many companies think they own the developers and will not allow them to work on projects without their approval even during off hours.

Projects like pfSense attracts more developers because everyone needs a firewall and pfSense is a very good one.

[freebee]

My original post is just asking some package. With fuctions that pfSense has, can be developed much more like a transparent-proxy that filters samba with some antivirus like clamav done (ex)... Anyway, is right say that for security reasons is bad have a NAS server with Firewall in the "front" of connection. But, if the intention is use other features like QoS, CARP, and etc, is valid too if implemented like a "alternative" tool besides FreeNAS and pfSense. In this case has i said, is not to be used in "one" place, but can give other directions and more late turn FreeNAS more different of others. Fuctions that just pfSense can do and can be combined.
Sorry by the inconvenience of my post. OpenSource attempts respond needs of the market that will consume that like other product, however, with other "mind" and "voice", what is very good to all of us.

[billm]

I get a sense that maybe some of the big corporations have something to do with this 'anti FreeNAS' development trend. Think about it, there is no need to spend thousands on a NAS box + thousands on a high end router when a $500 PC can do both with the same or more features using pfsense + FreeNAS.

I'm sure it's not HARD to implement freenas as a package for pfsense but none of the developers care. It's like they're being paid to slow down development because all this free software is threatening the big IT corporations.

None of the developers care because it's not an interesting problem or feature to them.  Most of us run our NAS (FreeNAS in most cases) on dedicated machines.  Feel free to revamp the existing package and maintain it.  Open source works because people have itches they need scratched and they scratch it themselves.

--Bill

[kapara]

I think HKPolice is just trying to get you guys irritated.  I think the direction pfSense is taking is a good one.  I also do not like the idea of running all of my products on one single machine.  Single point of failure.  I would recommend he could get an alix box from pcengines and then use the PC as a NAS box.  Having a single box which runs everything means when you need to reboot for something you are taking down all of your applications/services.