Date: Fri, 18 Jul 2014 14:58:01 +0200 From: Miroslav Lachman <000.fbsd@quip.cz> To: Gleb Smirnoff <glebius@FreeBSD.org>, "Kristian K. Nielsen" <freebsd@com.jkkn.dk> Cc: freebsd-current@freebsd.org, freebsd-questions@freebsd.org Subject: Re: Future of pf / firewall in FreeBSD ? - does it have one ? Message-ID: <53C919D9.4030006@quip.cz> In-Reply-To: <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org> References: <53C706C9.6090506@com.jkkn.dk> <20140718110645.GN87212@FreeBSD.org>
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
Gleb Smirnoff wrote, On 07/18/2014 13:06: [...] > The pf mailing list is about a dozen of active people. Yes, they are vocal > on the new syntax. But there also exist a large number of common FreeBSD > users who simply use pf w/o caring about syntax and reading pf mailing > list. If we destroy the syntax compatibility a very large population of > users would be hurt, for the sake of making a dozen happy. I don't agree on this part. Almost every bigger project / application needs to make some uncompatible changes over time. Apache, MySQL, PHP, GNOME, KDE... or FreeBSD itself with recent changes from pkg_* to pkg(ng). Backward compatibility cannot be maintained infinitely if new features should be added. I don't see the reason why PF should be exception. And I am writing this as one who really don't need any new PF features, but I am fine with syntax change in newer FreeBSD major version. There were bigger problem with pf.conf in the past - freebsd-update deleted it and machine was unprotected after reboot. So properly announced syntax change and tutorial to conversions is not problem for me and I hope for some others too. Miroslav Lachman
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?53C919D9.4030006>