Talk:PfSense

Mention the fork OPNsense and the ongoing controversy about pfSense not being actually free software (not all the source code is available). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.144.103.218 (talk • contribs) 09:42, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

seconded. this is not open source as pfsense cannot be built from source out of the repos. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:8001:6B00:833:9EED:986D:5A4A:1744 (talk) 04:11, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:Here someone appears to have collected evidence on this: https://github.com/rapi3/pfsense-is-closed-source. Someone should have a critical look at this, other sources and/or try to build pfSense. If and when the evidence is deemed credible, the article should be changed. Hulten (talk) 12:35, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

::Agreed, pfSense is not open source - the source code cannot be reproducibly built outside of the owning organization. I'm not a master on Wikipedia policies but I urge someone who is to review the above linked repository and consider removing "open source" from the article as it's very disingenuous. Also, be prepared for a wave of edits as this is breaking on hackernews. 2003:EC:371C:5700:35CB:F105:A8EC:AE12 (talk) — Preceding undated comment added 16:12, 26 January 2021 (UTC)

:::They recently launched a closed source branch called pfSense Plus which I have updated the article to reflect. The closed source github keeps being removed due to complaints but is valid to my knowledge; I'm not sure how that should be noted given that the majority of the code remains open source even if it can't be built.Cyrix2k (talk) 02:16, 13 March 2021 (UTC)

It might be a good idea to organize popular packages into a table rather than a list — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.114.236.63 (talk) 19:34, 4 September 2013 (UTC)

Can anyone shed further light on the reasons why this page is being considered for deletion?Jenglish02 (talk) 05:08, 6 August 2015 (UTC)

Moved here from the article. This is unsourced and is content for the product website. WP is not a proxy for their website.

;Hardware requirements

pfSense 2.1 through 2.3 has low minimum system requirements (for example 256 MB RAM and 500 MHz CPU){{cite web | url = https://www.pfsense.org/hardware/#requirements | accessdate = 5 August 2015 | publisher = Electric Sheep Fencing LLC | title = Hardware}} and can be installed on hardware with x86 or x86-64 architecture. Since 2.4, pfSense requires the x86-64 architecture, ending support for 32-bit installations.{{cite web | url = https://doc.pfsense.org/index.php/Does_pfSense_support_64_bit_systems | accessdate = 7 May 2017 | publisher = Electric Sheep Fencing LLC | title = 64-bit support}} Starting with 2.5, plans are to require cryptographic hardware acceleration, such as AES-NI.{{cite web | url = https://www.netgate.com/blog/pfsense-2-5-and-aes-ni.html | accessdate = 25 September 2017 | publisher = Electric Sheep Fencing LLC | title = pfSense 2.5 and AES-NI}} It is also available for embedded system hardware using Compact Flash or SD cards. pfSense also supports virtualized installation.

;Features

;Version history

{{Collapse top|Version history}}

{{Collapse bottom}}

{{reflist-talk}}

-- Jytdog (talk) 00:23, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

Looking for independent sources on the companies that have been involved in this - Electric Sheep Fencing LLC then Rubicon/Netgate. The business matters around this. Jytdog (talk) 14:49, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

User:Gonzopancho please explain why you are removing the content about the WTO matter. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 17:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

:how on earth does the WIPO matter have anything to do with pfSense (other than to simply promote OPNsense on pfSense wikipedia page?) --Gonzopancho (talk) 17:38, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

::This is something that the company actually did. You need to explain why you removed it. Jytdog (talk) 21:29, 13 July 2018 (UTC)

:::Regardless of the truth of dispute, the paragraph on OPNsense does not belong on the pfsense page as has nothing to do with the open source firewall/router software distribution itself, which is what this article is for. This paragraph would be more appropriately moved to the wiki page for Rubicon Communications, LLC or Netgate, who are the companies involved in this dispute. Furthermore, Wikipedia is not the place for companies to get revenge and to bring up every cases that a company has lost against another. The WIPO case is public and people can find it. If the Decisio or the OPNsense developers fell upset about past events, they can mention such on their website and user forums. Wikipedia is not the place to carry on this argument. Full disclosure: I am not affiliated with either company or software project, but I don't appreciate the negativity that this paragraph brings and the lack of value it provides about helping someone learn about pfsense the firewall/router product. Ice Ardor (talk) 04:00, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

:::* I'm reverting and reinstating the content (but editing for brevity).

:::* Also: including material in parent or child articles is standard practice (e.g. Tor (anonymity network)#Tor Browser). Since there is no Negate parent article, such material would belong here (preferably under it's own section heading, for the time being). All are encouraged to boldly create such an article, however.

:::* WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale. Nothing "negative" about it either way (it's rather dry, to be honest), and it passes the WP:NPOV test. -- dsprc ^[talk] 23:40, 25 November 2020 (UTC)

::::* I'm again reverting changes made by Ice Ardor as the stated reason of the information being off topic is not the case. As Jytdog pointed out it is something the company actually did. The Netgate page is now a redirect to the pfSense page and therefore any material that would have been included in the Netgate page, that is notable and regards pfSense, should now live here.

::::* I further concur that the wording of the paragraph about the WIPO case is "dry" or to put it in more WP terms, neutral. It describes events that took place, no more, no less. It is WP:NPOV.

::::* I will also note that such a neutral recounting of facts does not seem to reasonably constitute the carrying on of this argument. Merely that it is being documented as a notable event in this software's history something that would seem to fall well within the bounds of Wikipedia's mission.Generically Named (talk) 11:25, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

::::* I have however made the OPNsense section more distinct along with the Wireguard section to ensure clarity. The WIPO case information did not fit in its original location as part of the overview. Generically Named (talk) 11:33, 11 October 2024 (UTC)

Why are there no mention of Netgate trying to hurt OPNsense by spreading lies on the Netgate owned domain opnsense.com? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dustie (talk • contribs) 02:33, 5 November 2020 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|PfSense|answered=yes}}

Preview REleases on daily basis

https://snapshots.pfsense.org/amd64/pfSense_master/installer/ 92.117.174.218 (talk) 10:48, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

:We usually don't include links like these. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:29, 4 September 2020 (UTC)

::The note in the sidebar says that the last 2.5.0 release was over a year ago, which is incorrect and should be updated; right now, the oldest snapshot available via that link is from 02 January 2021. 71.237.199.9 (talk) 23:50, 9 January 2021 (UTC)

Now up to version 2.5.1 210.54.90.224 (talk) 01:52, 14 April 2021 (UTC)

{{ping|Dashmix}} {{ping|Cyrix2k}} Please discuss your reasoning for the edits you've made here so that we can reach an agreement and not engage in an edit war. Blaze The Wolf | Proud Furry and Wikipedia Editor (talk) (Stupidity by me) 16:01, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

:{{ping|Cyrix2k}}, You are reverting only the edits pertaining to OPNsense on the page of pfSense. This clearly indicates that you have some vested interest in OPNsense. It appears you are an advocate for OPNsense and is intent on having the pfSense page be an extension of your feelings toward Netgate, rather than fairly and objectively progressing an unbiased history of pfSense software.

I have restored my edits. Reasoning for my edits:

• pfSense is completely open source and not partially open source - the gnid source code is not needed to build the pfSense source code.

• In 2014, a competing open source firewall and routing software project, OPNsense, was forked from pfsense, with the first official release in Jan 2015. Both pfsense and OPNsense are under active development, while the original m0n0wall project has been discontinued - I had removed this line because it looks like self-promotion done by OPNsense as the citation was OPNsense’s own website which does not meet WP:CITE, WP:RS

• In November 2017, a World Intellectual Property Organization panel found Netgate, the copyright holder of pfSense, utilized OPNsense' trademarks in bad faith to discredit OPNsense, and obligated Netgate to transfer ownership of a domain name to Deciso - I had removed this because - Netgate is not the copyright holder of PfSense, the official website states that states that ‘pfSense software is Copyright 2004-2021 Electric Sheep Fencing, LLC.’ and ‘pfSense is a federally registered trademark of Electric Sheep Fencing, LLC.’ — Preceding unsigned comment added by Dashmix (talk • contribs) 16:14, 10 September 2021 (UTC)

:: Foremost: focus on content, not contributors, WP:CIV, WP:AGF, and all that jazz…

:: Further: line on partial, proprietary components was sourced – we'll need a source to back claims stating otherwise. (Per previous comments above on this matter: WP:IDONTLIKEIT isn't a valid rationale.)

:: Continuing: edit summary of removal stated: "removing content with no correct ref" – material is properly cited and ref'd.

:: Second ed summary claimed: "excluding possible vandalism by OPNsense" – that's not vandalism, and We ain't no OPNsense…

:: One-line blurb noting a fork doesn't read as promotional, and is free of puffery. Agree a third-party should be cited to support this claim, however.

:: Netgate is the commonly known trade name of Rubicon/El Sheep. Thus, presentation of such nomenclature in this manner would be appropriate; particularly since the shell [corp] game is noted by the referenced source. -- dsprc ^[talk] 22:32, 18 March 2022 (UTC)

{{Edit semi-protected|PfSense|answered=yes}}

Add hyperlink to OPNsense topic where that word appears in the article Clbii (talk) 00:35, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

:{{done}} ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 00:40, 1 September 2022 (UTC)

How can one edit the Infobox to contain both the paid and the community edition versions of pfSense? The paid versions are still happening yet community was last updated over a year ago. — Preceding unsigned comment added by NantucketHistory (talk • contribs) 17:52, 6 April 2023 (UTC)

{{edit semi-protected|PfSense|answered=yes}}

Under "Latest Release" Change Community Edition from 2.7.2 to 2.8.0.

Under "Latest Release" Change Plus from 23.09.1 to 24.11

24. 2600:4040:F11E:9001:0:0:0:A08D (talk) 23:18, 28 May 2025 (UTC)

:{{Already done}} Szmenderowiecki (talk) 16:04, 22 June 2025 (UTC)