[189148] in North American Network Operators' Group
Re: sub $500-750 CPE firewall for voip-centric application
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Josh Reynolds)
Fri May 6 15:40:10 2016
X-Original-To: nanog@nanog.org
In-Reply-To: <572CF1B2.4060204@gmail.com>
Date: Fri, 6 May 2016 14:40:07 -0500
From: Josh Reynolds <josh@kyneticwifi.com>
To: Aris Lambrianidis <effulgence@gmail.com>
Cc: NANOG <nanog@nanog.org>
Errors-To: nanog-bounces@nanog.org
I've been very happy with the 2.3 release. Modularizing everything and the
new bootstrap GUI is very nice. Updated BSD code base is a godsend.
On May 6, 2016 2:36 PM, "Aris Lambrianidis" <effulgence@gmail.com> wrote:
> Mel Beckman wrote:
>
>> But bug reports and response can be measured, at least by those with
>> support contracts for the commercial products. I found PFSense less
>> reliable by a quite large margin than commercial offerings. Plus when I
>> have a problem, I can open a case and somebody else is working on it
>> (because I paid them to), and they usually solve the problem without a lot
>> more involvement on my part.
>>
> Valid points, my intention was to share my thoughts on certification and
> audit processes in general, and I guess in the process derail the thread a
> bit.
>
> Back to pfSense, arguably the point you raise is even stronger than the
> "bad coding practices" one. I might even say I personally don't care much
> about coding practices as I care about support services being prompt and
> effective. The latter
> *may* actually lead to good coding practices, but not the other way around.
>
> Aris
>
