Talk:PF (firewall)

History

The "History" section of this article is full of spin. There was quite a bit of argument out there about Darren's license, and if I recall correctly, the only versions of `ipfilter` with a restrictive license were non-release versions. Furthermore, the back-patting of Theo is unencyclopedic. --Stybn 03:21, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it has a few problems, most significantly lack of cites. I don't think only unreleased versions had restrictive licenses, if that was the case there would never have been an issue, but if you can find a cite, mention it. The OpenBSD article cites http://www.newsforge.com/article.pl?sid=01/06/06/169245 on the subject, and I'm pretty sure I located the mailing list threads before without too much trouble. NicM 12:26, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

That article does in fact seem to say that only unreleased versions had the new license, although the period was somewhat confused. NicM 12:31, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

I don't see that in the article, NicM. And now that I'm doing some reading, it doesn't look like I was right, either. That said, the license issue was never entirely cut-and-dried, and I made some changes to the article to reflect that ("perceived" etc.). More to come. --Stybn 18:33, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

They say that the latest release was still the old license and that Darren Reed said that every release was the same, but they don't say it was always so, so I guess I'm wrong :-).

Your current version is better but there are a couple of issues. I'd fix them but it's late here:

• One-line paragraphs are a Bad Thing. Seriously, make it one or two substantial paragraphs.
• There are a couple of typos.
• "Although the FreeBSD and NetBSD projects consulted with Reed and received his consent, butthe OpenBSD team decided to replace the software rather than negotiate future licensing issues."—This seems POV, it needs to be rephrased or expanded.
• Both of the quotes, but Darren Reed's particularly seem a bit flippant and don't really tell us much about the dispute. Also, what is a self-interview, and does it meet WP:RS?

It would perhaps be better to recount the dispute dispassionately and chronologically and then relate the conclusion back to the development of PF. NicM 21:39, 25 March 2007 (UTC).

A self-interview is a FAQ, and I've changed the article to describe it as such. Other changes too, to clarify and neutralize. --Stybn 03:46, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Of what interest, exactly, is the ipfilter licensing issue to the history of PF? When you look at the ipfilter page it does not include a single mention of this. Surely a better "history" of PF would include some details about PF, less about ipfilter? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.95.66.226 (talk) 04:15, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

The ipfilter licensing problems led to PF being created, although you are right we should have less about it, a short paragraph with something like "Development of PF began after OpenBSD dropped its previous firewall, ipfilter, due to licensing issues. ...." followed by lots more detail of PF's development if you can find it. Feel free to improve it, you might find useful info on benzedrine.cx and also by looking for interviews with Theo de Raadt and Daniel Hartmeier. NicM 17:10, 11 October 2007 (UTC).

pf syntax highlighting lost

Since the switch from Geshi to Pygments for syntax highlighting (phab:T85794), support for 'pf' was unfortunately dropped, as can be seen with the plain text formatting on this page and others such as NPF (firewall). If you want specialised 'pf' syntax highlight support again, it will need to be added to Pygments. Alternatively, if there is another language which has similar syntax, we can add that as a fallback. John Vandenberg ^(chat) 18:34, 18 July 2015 (UTC)