Got it working- here is how.

[aesth]

If a machine that is properly configured by default is the idea here, I'm all for it. It does seem to need some clarity somewhere in the GUI around why some rules are pre-selected to be enabled or disabled, some are drop actions, some alert. It takes a lot of time to know every rule so most users have to resort to trust in developers anyway. Macros that enable/disable pre-selected advisable rules would be useful and this does fit into the simplicity philosophy.

[l0rdraiden]

I'm merely trying to be honest without judging others. Personally I don't care for the "you don't do what I want so I will not like you as much" attitude. Please take it elsewhere.


Cheers,
Franco

That looks like gonzopancho speaking... taking things to the extreme
Who is not liking you? We were having normal conversation

I haven't seen a single suggestion that is not available in any comercial firewall.

[franco]

That looks like gonzopancho speaking... taking things to the extreme
Who is not liking you? We were having normal conversation

Ah, yes, knee jerk off topic ad hominem attack. Unfortunately, I am not impressed when you talk about the guy who compared me to Hitler in his "parody" opnsense.com page because that's what people do to kill competition before it gets popular because open source is the best am I right.


Cheers,
Franco

[l0rdraiden]

That looks like gonzopancho speaking... taking things to the extreme
Who is not liking you? We were having normal conversation

Ah, yes, knee jerk off topic ad hominem attack. Unfortunately, I am not impressed when you talk about the guy who compared me to Hitler in his "parody" opnsense.com page because that's what people do to kill competition before it gets popular because open source is the best am I right.


Cheers,
Franco

You see, you repeat the behaviour, you are on defensive, you pic one topic of the post, ignore the rest and you take it to the extreme.

If you can not argument what the people is saying in this post at least be more respectful. People is giving feedback about features in opnsense and you act like a kid because you don't agree...

If your priority with opnsense is not make it comercially viable via support, say it, make a blog about it, so we will understand many things and I guess people will stop request things that will represent a significant step fordward in terms of features. I guess some minor proyects like sensei will end up being more succesfull in economic terms.

And honestly I don't really care your stupid war with gonzopancho but I guess everyone knows that it was not your fault, and we should thank you all for what you did.

[franco]

You see, you repeat the behaviour, you are on defensive, you pic one topic of the post, ignore the rest and you take it to the extreme.

For someone trying to make a case you dash out a lot of personal insults and mischaracterisations. I still can't provide what you want and you keep giving me a hard time for it. You see, judging others reveals more about yourself than the people you try to judge. In particular, you are beating a dead horse with your continued persistence. A horse you killed yourself with taking this thread down the personal attack memory lane.

If you can not argument what the people is saying in this post at least be more respectful. People is giving feedback about features in opnsense and you act like a kid because you don't agree...

Look, you're clearly not listening and/or missing the point fundamentally.

1. You insist of rewriting the open source IDS functionality.

2. The core team response is that it sees no immediate need to put hours into it, especially when these valuable ours can be spent on more pressing topics in the meantime.

3. Based on not providing rewritten code you are incapable or unwilling to provide the code yourself.

4. You (and others) act out because we don't agree with your requirements and needs.

Look at the long-lasting firewall API controversy. It was requested by a lot of people over the years, even companies who make money with OPNsense but have no obligation to contribute. Nobody saw the work or was willing to sponsor it (and we don't consider cheap outsourced programmers as a way forward for that particular matter for simple quality reasons).

In the end, someone was willing to sponsor a firewall API this year and behold, it was added to the project for everyone to use in a matter of weeks, not years.

Little life lesson: somebody telling you they won't do it means they won't do it based on the things that you offered. You get what you negotiate for. And dashing out insults because others do not agree is not negotiating.

If your priority with opnsense is not make it comercially viable via support, say it, make a blog about it, so we will understand many things and I guess people will stop request things that will represent a significant step fordward in terms of features. I guess some minor proyects like sensei will end up being more succesfull in economic terms.

I don't see the point for this bleak comment. It speaks from a bitter place. We built all of what you see. We can make it better together still. Unless of course you don't see a way forward for you personally, but you can't use your reasoning to substitute your situation with everyone else's.

And honestly I don't really care your stupid war with gonzopancho but I guess everyone knows that it was not your fault, and we should thank you all for what you did.

Honestly, you brought this topic up. Acts have consequences. This should really not surprise you. Read twice before hitting "Post" is a good guideline.

I expect your attitude will be more reasonable after I addressed all of your points like you wished.


Cheers,
Franco

[l0rdraiden]

Look, you're clearly not listening and/or missing the point fundamentally.

1. You insist of rewriting the open source IDS functionality.

2. The core team response is that it sees no immediate need to put hours into it, especially when these valuable ours can be spent on more pressing topics in the meantime.

3. Based on not providing rewritten code you are incapable or unwilling to provide the code yourself.

4. You (and others) act out because we don't agree with your requirements and needs.

Again you take things to the extreme

1. Rewriting the IDS? are you mad? who said that?
Expose a few more settings to the interface, that is a rewriting? lol
Is bring to a web interface a funtionally already exists in the backend... then I said look this is nice (scirus) someone replied and I didn't insist.

2. You could have said that first time instead being disrespectful with other forum members.

3. Rewriting the IDS functionality? again?

4. The only one acting out is you sir. Again if you don't plan to do it you can honestly say it instead being disrespectful. "Hey guys we are not doing this because we have other stuff more critical in the roadmap bla bla bla..."

Look at the long-lasting firewall API controversy. It was requested by a lot of people over the years, even companies who make money with OPNsense but have no obligation to contribute. Nobody saw the work or was willing to sponsor it (and we don't consider cheap outsourced programmers as a way forward for that particular matter for simple quality reasons).

In the end, someone was willing to sponsor a firewall API this year and behold, it was added to the project for everyone to use in a matter of weeks, not years.

Little life lesson: somebody telling you they won't do it means they won't do it based on the things that you offered. You get what you negotiate for. And dashing out insults because others do not agree is not negotiating.

I hope you apply this life lesson as well in the future, because as far as I can tell in your post... you started being rude, and no one is pointing you with a gun to do something, just suggesting stuff

I don't see the point for this bleak comment. It speaks from a bitter place. We built all of what you see. We can make it better together still. Unless of course you don't see a way forward for you personally, but you can't use your reasoning to substitute your situation with everyone else's.

Don't take it wrong, don't take it to the extreme as always, because is the truth, offering a plain firewall that do the same or less than most of the comercial (or not) competitors will make it harder comercially, and even I (despite you may think) will like to see this product growth, it will be good for the community.
Usually if someone makes a feature request 99% of the time is not an original idea, is something that he has seen in other product and has been using, and if other product has add it is because probably because is usefull or many other costumers has asked for this.

For example, sensei, adds value because it contains a set of features that not all the competiros have.
Most things in the roadmap we haven seen last year add things that are avaiable in any FW or if they don't the added value is small.

Why a lot of people dont left pfsense to go opnsense, because pfblockerng is not in opnsense and although it can do something similar it misses a lot of features and customization available in pfblockerng. With sensei may be happening something similar already, because is a key differentiator.

Look at the roadmap
https://opnsense.org/about/road-map/
Do you see something that could be a differentiator with other firewalls in this TIER? (pfsense, sophos XG, Sonicwall, mikrotic...). Sorry I don't, and maybe the roadmap is fine because there are a lot of things to fix yet, but you know that better than me.

Regards

[hushcoden]

and do a search filter for:

DELETED

these are old rules, and not used rules- but if they are enabled, I don't know if it has any effect on system resources or not- maybe someone can chime in....

anyway, I just pick 1000 again and check sid, then scroll to the bottom and click disable after that's done hit apply, then go thru the next page, if any to see if it applied the disabled to those as well.

Is there a way to delete those rules than just disable them ?

[franco]

l0rdraiden: you think I'm taking things to extreme, but you keep using the word "extreme" and imply that I'm extreme. I really don't think that's anywhere near where we are at with the way you keep pushing your interest, even by walking back your intentions. If you were't going for extereme, your words prior speak otherwise.

If you need need certain things to be said a certain way I think you will have to ask the right questions and -again- cut out the insults. At this point, I think you will keep going anyway and you left a lasting impression one way or another. Good day sir!

[l0rdraiden]

l0rdraiden: you think I'm taking things to extreme, but you keep using the word "extreme" and imply that I'm extreme. I really don't think that's anywhere near where we are at with the way you keep pushing your interest, even by walking back your intentions. If you were't going for extereme, your words prior speak otherwise.

If you need need certain things to be said a certain way I think you will have to ask the right questions and -again- cut out the insults. At this point, I think you will keep going anyway and you left a lasting impression one way or another. Good day sir!

Again, and again and again.... taking things to the extreme => taking things out of context to a limit position.
I have never said that you are a extremist like you imply in your post, don't go victim now

At least next time treat better others opinions and not get on defensive, like someone is attacking you, since no one besides you have have any disrespecful attitude before that post.

Best regards

I'm merely trying to be honest without judging others. Personally I don't care for the "you don't do what I want so I will not like you as much" attitude. Please take it elsewhere.

[AdSchellevis]

@l0rdraiden can you please stop with this behaviour, it looks like we don't agree on a lot of things (competitive edge compared to other products, which features add value, etc, etc).

Just try to keep things civil and to the point. As mentioned earlier, we can always discuss the addition of (advanced) features, as long as the use-case is clear and doesn't break how others use the product. In some cases we might even be willing to do the work.

This thread in general has a high potential to separate two groups of people, where in reality, our product is somewhere in the middle. We can't fix "make it simpler, Apple like" and "I want all the toggles from the underlaying system".

Since time is valuable, I'm not intending to put a lot more effort into this discussion, so please do not try to start a new one with me, chances are 99% I'm not going to respond.

Best regards,

Ad

[l0rdraiden]

@l0rdraiden can you please stop with this behaviour, it looks like we don't agree on a lot of things (competitive edge compared to other products, which features add value, etc, etc).

Just try to keep things civil and to the point. As mentioned earlier, we can always discuss the addition of (advanced) features, as long as the use-case is clear and doesn't break how others use the product. In some cases we might even be willing to do the work.

This thread in general has a high potential to separate two groups of people, where in reality, our product is somewhere in the middle. We can't fix "make it simpler, Apple like" and "I want all the toggles from the underlaying system".

Since time is valuable, I'm not intending to put a lot more effort into this discussion, so please do not try to start a new one with me, chances are 99% I'm not going to respond.

Best regards,

Ad

I'm behaving fine thanks, being in disagreement doesn't mean a bad behaviour, but you already know that.

If you think the feature set of opnsense in 2020 is fine, and don't want to give any explanation, then fantastic I wasn't expecting one, I just gave my opinion, based on the experience of having tested many commercial products available in the market.

I was only asking to some people responding in this thread not being disrespecful or poke fun at other forum members when they are expressing their opinions.

[franco]

After internal discussion we will no longer engage in topics starting with "horrible" wording or suggesting that other projects are superior or that someone will move to something else for reason "x".

This thread will be locked as everything has been said. We might consider locking such topics earlier in the future.

For reference:

Horrible= badly designed.

a hair away from going to PFsense, badly designed. More descriptive?

Use the solution that works. Think twice before posting unproductive negativity. Thanks!