Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

netgate.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 90 posts

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#71

Post by pfsense-ivork »

nalllar wrote: post #68
pfsense-ivork wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you were incredibly rude to use and that's why you were banned. I suggest you share full screenshots if you're going to create drama.

I shared full screenshots of my own comments, except of the mod mail. Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/FlF8E1Q.png You deleted your own posts. This is the archive of some of them: https://archive.fo/pBoAY I don't have an archive of the deeper posts, but they weren't particularly pleasant.

Thank you for sharing the mod discussion screenshot.

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#72

Post by nalllar »

pfsense-ivork wrote: post #70
Gamblore wrote: post #62

Lots of bans going on over at /r/pfsense where users are asking straightforward questions and the staff are just banning them. Read the edits made to the posts there crazy.... Seeming more and more like this is a cash grab thing to get people to upgrade to their hardware.

You were banned because you violated rules. You were incredibly rude and then even threatened us. If that wasn't enough you attempted to start a brand new drama thread. "Cash grab thing" assertion proves we were right to ban you.

You've just gone and accused Gamblore of being someone who they aren't.

You told me to "Chill for 30 days". Maybe you need to chill instead of damaging your brand by lashing out at people?

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#73

Post by pfsense-ivork »

nalllar wrote: post #72
pfsense-ivork wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You were banned because you violated rules. You were incredibly rude and then even threatened us. If that wasn't enough you attempted to start a brand new drama thread. "Cash grab thing" assertion proves we were right to ban you.

You've just gone and accused Gamblore of being someone who they aren't. You told me to "Chill for 30 days". Maybe you need to chill instead of damaging your brand by lashing out at people?

I think it's you who don't know who Gamblore is.

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#74

Post by nalllar »

pfsense-ivork wrote: post #73
nalllar wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've just gone and accused Gamblore of being someone who they aren't. You told me to "Chill for 30 days". Maybe you need to chill instead of damaging your brand by lashing out at people?

I think it's you who don't know who Gamblore is.

Gamblore can't be i_mormon_stuff, since i_mormon_stuff also has an account here under the same name and posted in this same thread.

Was there a third user you banned?

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#75

Post by pfsense-ivork »

nalllar wrote: post #74
pfsense-ivork wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's you who don't know who Gamblore is.

Gamblore can't be i_mormon_stuff, since i_mormon_stuff also has an account here under the same name and posted in this same thread. Was there a third user you banned?

Nope, just you and i_mormon_stuff. I still think it's him, but lets see if he ever responds.

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#76

Post by paulmd »

pfsense-ivork wrote: post #67
nalllar wrote: post #61

I was just banned from the pfSense subreddit for arguing about this change. https://i.imgur.com/1051KOl.png My comments are visible here: https://i.imgur.com/8oZVSJO.png Lovely. Due to this behaviour by pfSense employees I no longer want to use pfSense. Had no issues with the software and was considering purchasing their hardware. Not any more. archived view of the thread: https://archive.fo/pBoAY

No, you were incredibly rude to use and that's why you were banned. I suggest you share full screenshots if you're going to create drama.

At this point my advice would be for you guys to just leave it be. Stand up and walk away from the computer and go watch a movie for the night. You've made your call on this issue, you have unspecified "plans" and unless you care to reveal them or you care to change your stance on this issue there's nothing more to say or do here. You just need to let the anger blow over.

You don't gain anything by further antagonizing users at this point. And from your stance here - you don't actually want these people as users, correct? Essentially you've decided that these users are so-called "devil customers" - they're not profitable and you want them out of your clientele.

That's why you're essentially hardforking away from their hardware. So their opinions are no longer relevant to you, are they? As such this is literally a no-win move for you, the only thing it can do is hurt your business's image.

Just walk away, this isn't a good look for you guys.

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#77

Post by wtallis »

porjo wrote: post #59
wtallis wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's an interesting board, but it still only has one Ethernet interface, plus an on-board switch.

The device has 3 ethernet interfaces - one directly connected to the SoC, and the other two via an onboard switch.

That's not at all what the board's block diagram [0] depicts, but apparently they don't care to make that accurate. While the photographs do make it clear that there are three Ethernet ports, it's wrong to say that there are three Ethernet interfaces; the SoC only supports two and it's misleading to count the extra switched ports as extra interfaces because they do not even have the theoretical possibility of contributing to better routing capabilities.

[0] http://espressobin.net/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/ESPRESSObi...

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#78

Post by htilonom »

s0ss wrote: post #55
htilonom wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Oh yes, OPNsense. Those sure are some philosophical and practical differences. Differences as in: - code theft - copyright abuse - attempt to steal pfSense trademark in Europe - toxic project members who publicly attack anyone who dares to point out issues (including assault on all major pfSense developers). - hiding serious vulnerabilities - downplaying serious vulnerabilities Oh yes, that's a very different project…

I think it would be healthy for you to 1) read about what copyright actually is and 2) read about what various licenses permit. There seems to be a disconnect between what is actually occurring and your understanding (and subsequent nerd-rage).

Awww, brand new account just to remind me OPNsense devs and their minions are watching. Thank you <3

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#79

Post by s0ss »

htilonom wrote: post #78
s0ss wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it would be healthy for you to 1) read about what copyright actually is and 2) read about what various licenses permit. There seems to be a disconnect between what is actually occurring and your understanding (and subsequent nerd-rage).

Awww, brand new account just to remind me OPNsense devs and their minions are watching. Thank you <3

I have no affiliation with them. Let me know if you'd like to discuss copyright. Good luck with whatever it is you do! <3

Re: PfSense 2.5 and AES-NI

#80

Post by Gamblore »

nalllar wrote: post #68
pfsense-ivork wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, you were incredibly rude to use and that's why you were banned. I suggest you share full screenshots if you're going to create drama.

I shared full screenshots of my own comments, except of the mod mail. Here it is: https://i.imgur.com/FlF8E1Q.png You deleted your own posts. This is the archive of some of them: https://archive.fo/pBoAY I don't have an archive of the deeper posts, but they weren't particularly pleasant.

He deleted all the posts. His own, yours, that other guys. The whole comment chain. You may have to log out to see your own comments erased.
Post reply on HN