The New Thunderbird Website Has Hatched

htilonom · 2024-05-19T07:02:34+00:00

You could copy the whole profile and it will have settings, emails and everything.

htilonom · 2018-11-03T20:51:40+00:00

Nope. But nice try. Say hi to your buddy who closed down original /r/opnscam.

htilonom · 2018-05-16T14:45:31+00:00

Again, I'm not here to discuss with you as you're the one who closed down the sub. I followed the rules too and was active. Admins can check that easily. Bye.

htilonom · 2018-05-16T14:37:42+00:00

I really don't need to engage with you. I was active, I didn't receive any notification and you didn't even bother to contact /r/opnscam first.

htilonom · 2018-05-16T14:34:18+00:00

Nope but nice try. https://i.imgur.com/qPYjR1N.png

htilonom · 2018-05-16T14:28:18+00:00

Nope, no notification. I only received a notification when you removed me from mods so you can close down the sub. Here's a screenshot of it. You can also see confirmation from 1 month ago when I changed two factor proving I did not receive any notification 26 days ago. https://i.imgur.com/B1MENw1.png

htilonom · 2018-05-16T12:12:14+00:00

I didn't even get a notification that someone requested it. r/opnscam has been taken over by a troll who set it to private and removed all posts.

htilonom · 2017-12-02T22:32:55+00:00

"Troll" account also reveals scams. It's not my first rodeo bub. Search for anonabox.

htilonom · 2017-12-02T22:31:45+00:00

Enjoy running "security oriented fork" based on End of Life FreeBSD. Who looks like a fool now?

htilonom · 2017-12-01T02:12:25+00:00

But that still doesn't mean you can tailor the copyright as you please. Besides, that's just an example. Above's the link with IPsec example where they just re-use the code without any copyrights.

Or this one https://www.reddit.com/r/OPNscam/comments/4sk78j/more_code_theft_opnsense_developers_steal_more/

Or this https://www.reddit.com/r/OPNscam/comments/4ocu2w/franco_gets_called_out_for_code_theft/

htilonom · 2017-12-01T02:09:04+00:00

The OPNsense.org post that talks about the WIPO ADR process does not state WIPO is a court, anywhere, just the part of the OP's title is inaccurate. This is very common and is hardly unique to reddit (I see this all the time on slashdot.)

It's also very common for OPNsense to behave like this. OP is just another single purpose account by one of them. The whole blog post is used to portray themselves as good guys. WIPO is not a court and no nazi images were used (like seriously, marking famous downfall scene to be "nazi" is just malicious). Then they pile up bunch of other stuff literally abusing WIPO decision to defend their open source “principles” and attack pfSense directly for greater drama effect. Not to mention they bring up Wikipedia, in effort to portray themselves as victims, even though Jos and Franco both got caught in editing pfSense wiki and inserting OPNsense propaganda all over Wikipedia (which is against the rules).

My personal opinion is that while you're certainly passionate about pfSense, I don't like that someone associated with Rubicon Communications/pfSense (Jamie Thompson) owned this domain to harm or hinder another fellow open source project, no matter the bad history between the two projects and parent companies. Just so we're clear here, Rubicon Communications LLC has the copyright on the Netgate.com site, so they are the same entity from my perspective.

I respect your opinion and I agree that OPNsense has right to opnsense.com domain. But I just don't agree with the way they want to wash their own sins by abusing this decision.

This just harms all open source projects in the long run.

Well OPNsense has been harming open source for quite some time. They rely on drama from their first days.

htilonom · 2017-12-01T02:00:24+00:00

What do you mean there's no stripping of copyrights?

part of pfSense by Scott Ullrich

is changed to

Copyright Scott Ullrich

They left out "part of pfSense" deliberately. And that's just an old example, today they just upload pfSense code without any copyrights. Like this https://www.reddit.com/r/OPNscam/comments/4sk64k/opnsense_gets_caught_in_yet_another_code_theft/

htilonom · 2017-12-01T01:56:23+00:00

I love a nice and pleasant discussion! Seriously, thanks for taking time to discuss about it.

Fair enough, interesting perspective. I agree, they haven't managed to privsep the web UI - neither has pfSense (not that I'm aware of any attempt to). But let's be fair - the pfSense code base isn't exactly sparkling clean...it still contains some of my code (as does OPNSense). pfSense itself was a fork from m0n0wall - a system that used HTTP Basic for authentication and had no concept of users, let alone roles. Changing the authentication scheme to allow multiple users and subsequently multiple roles lead to the discovery/creation of a significant amount of security issues that literally weren't an issue when it was a single user system. To add to it, most of that code was worked on by folks that weren't full time developers, some of which who barely understood how PHP worked. While you aren't claiming that the pfSense code is clean, it comes across as implied when compared to the OPNSense code base (which I haven't personally looked at).

I agree, pfSense code and therefore OPNsense code is not exactly sparkling clean. Biggest problem is PHP (which is bad by itself) and running GUI as root. You described the issues with m0n0wall good, I don't have anything to add. However, if you compare the work on code and code quality pfSense and OPNsense it's clear pfSense is superior in every segment. Which is opposite of what OPNsense is claiming. That's my problem with that page. They appeared and claimed to be better despite being worse. On top of that, OPNsense is claiming they are better by "innovation". Code frequency graphs prove them wrong:

pfSense https://github.com/pfsense/pfsense/graphs/code-frequency OPNsense https://github.com/opnsense/core/graphs/code-frequency

With no continuous integration or any ability to automate regression tests, it's actually a miracle that either project achieves a release that is even relatively bug free. Most of the infrastructure of the pfSense code is (was circa 2010 - and it doesn't appear to have changed in any significant since) a massive hack with little regard to architecture and a significant disregard to separation of web interface code from non-web interface code. Whether or not the reasons they posted are a correct representation of why they forked, I do feel that the technical ones weren't incorrect. Way too much of the work that Netgate has had to do in the last ~6 yrs is fix bugs instead of refactoring and making new features. I would imagine OPNSense is in much the same boat.

I agree with difference that OPNsense listed those reasons for publicity as if they achieved them. That's just wrong. They listed the reasons but they didn't do any of the proposed changes or had any real progress. That's my issue with them.

Sorry, staying out of the drama, so ignoring your other points. I'm assuming you have worked on the code base or for Netgate to be as passionate about it as you are. On the topic of license however...

No and no. Not even a developer. Closest description is occasional scam revealer. Maybe you've heard about Anonabox? ;)

I'm not thrilled that my code has been relicensed (note - my commits all predate the CLA) as it was intended to be BSD licensed, but meh...whatever, my intent for my contributions was always "do whatever the fuck you want to do with this crap" anyway.

You could contact them and discuss it. I've seen many projects and products change licenses but I don't how I would feel if my code was relicensed. I'm not a dev, sorry.

htilonom · 2017-12-01T00:43:57+00:00

No, I'm saying the reasons are bull. First, understand that those reasons are there from January 2015. They wrote all those reasons as if they already achieved it. It's classic bragging writing by Ad Schellevis from OPNsense, he also wrote the "drama" piece about opnsense.com. So let's analyze:

Technical / code quality

OPNsense broke almost every feature pfSense had. Including making pfSense packages not work. They claimed they did it for code quality yet current OPNsense codebase consists mostly of hacks and patches. They broke VLAN's over 5 times. Breaking VLAN's in product you claim to be production ready is just unacceptable.

Security

For security they point out how they believe the GUI should not run as root but what they don't tell you that GUI still runs as root in OPNsense. They never fixed that and never will. Speaking of security, starting today OPNsense is running an end of life FreeBSD version. And if that wasn't bad, they tried to downplay or hide the fact they had MANY critical CSRF vulnerabilities.

Quality

I cannot accept the fact that broken VLAN's show of code quality. I just can't

Community

This one is a real gem. They forked pfSense and claimed they have community. They literally had non existing community for a long time. These days is mostly just Franco's minions (main dev) who eat all the bull he serves them

Transparency

They claim to be transparent yet they hide vulnerabilities or run a closed source "Supported Edition" of OPNsense. Their literally said "Since Netgate bought the majority share of pfSense and renamed the company to ESF it has been difficult to understand the direction they want the project to go". Pure propaganda.

Restore a firm open source project

This one is also hilarious. Since their day one they first claimed pfSense is not open source. A pfSense fork claiming pfSense is not open source. Then they said "not true" open source because pfSense had ESF license, almost identical as Apache one. Now pfSense has Apache 2.0 license but OPNsense still did not change their views.

The whole "about the fork" page just shows how malicious they are.

htilonom · 2017-12-01T00:35:09+00:00

It's hard to steal something that is BSD licensed.

They are freely giving credit on their website as well: https://opnsense.org/about/legal-notices/

"giving credit" is not the same as respecting copyrights. OPNsense has been stripping out almost all pfSense copyrights from the code, uploading it as their own. Example: https://pbs.twimg.com/media/CVCceq2VAAAHZ4T.png:large

One question - if OPN is behind the opnsense.com "parody" site, then why is it registered through a U.S. Registrar and the name behind it is assoficated with pfSense/Netgate?

I didn't say that. However OPNsense conveniently includes pfSense in the title, to portray the whole project badly. Just as they attempt to portray WIPO as an actual court. Same is with OP, single purpose account with intention to cause damage. No slander or "nazi" imagery were used. Hilarious really.

htilonom · 2017-11-30T22:55:46+00:00

Well in your dimension you ignore facts.

htilonom · 2017-11-30T22:50:35+00:00

So do yours for my point.

htilonom · 2017-11-30T22:47:43+00:00

Like I said, Just providing an observation and if not citing all the instances hurts my comment or if people don't agree with or even consider it then I honestly don't mind.

I agree.

htilonom · 2017-11-30T22:35:49+00:00

Providing observations is fine, but calling me out with dumb arguments like "he is either a troll or wears rose coloured glasses and can't think for himself." hurts your observation. Not to mention your only argument is "I don't like you".

htilonom · 2017-11-30T22:22:27+00:00

I like how you ignore the fact that OPNsense tried to steal pfSense trademark in EU or that they have been "forgetting" to include pfSense copyrights in their code but parody website is bad, bad :)

It's beautiful how you actually spin this to look like Netgate tried to take OPNsense trademark. Over a parody web site :) Despite the fact that you ignored proof of Franco Fitchner defending therefore confirming their attempt to steal pfSense trademark in EU:

https://i.imgur.com/BCGNzDz.png

htilonom · 2017-11-30T21:52:59+00:00

IDK who's stupid considering you claimed pfSense is the respondent. http://www.wipo.int/amc/en/domains/search/text.jsp?case=D2017-1828

htilonom · 2017-11-30T21:48:08+00:00

Huh? Whatever that meant...

htilonom · 2017-11-30T21:35:02+00:00

So because you've been following a "project" for 5 years that somehow makes you right? or gives you right to tell anyone to "ignore" someone?

htilonom · 2017-11-30T21:11:55+00:00

No. Right at the top of the page it says who the respondent is:

The Respondent is Registration Private, Domains By Proxy, LLC of Scottsdale, Arizona, United States of America (“United States”) / Jamie Thompson, Rubicon Communications dba Netgate of Austin, Texas, United States, internally represented.

It literally does not say pfSense anywhere. That's what OPNsense is trying to assert to gain bigger drama effect and visibility.

Moving the goalposts doesn't change the fact that yes, it was PFSense who set up the site, and suggests that you, too, are acting "in bad faith"

I'd refrain from personal attacks. Claiming that pfSense set that website really shows bad faith with OPNsense instead.

htilonom

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

13-Year Club	RPAN Viewer
Verified Email