Talk:List of router and firewall distributions

Not sure how to cite, but...

I don't know how to cite things, I'm not even good at using wikipedia (not sure if I'm doing this right, either)... But at the end, where it says a citation is needed for Zeroshell, I have the page: http://www.zeroshell.net/ And here's the page explaining about the QoS: http://www.zeroshell.net/qos/

Could someone cite this for me? Because I don't know how —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.245.199.6 (talk) 12:11, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Better handled as a category

I'm pretty certain that this page would be better handled as a category. Suggest making it a redirect to the cateogory page. --Joewski 20:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

pfsense is FreeBSD based

I humbly suggest that the pfsense link be removed. Tdelporto 00:35, 9 October 2007 (UTC)

M0n0wall is BSD-based too. Should this page rename "open source" for "Linux"? Linux Is Not UNIX, after all... 216.135.32.188 (talk) 16:40, 3 July 2008 (UTC)

XORP might need included

www.xorp.org might need included. It uses BSD license & is free. Also, I think vyatta is based on xorp. vyatta is both community and commercial. www.vyatta.org & www.vyatta.com —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.223.173.45 (talk) 22:19, 19 July 2008 (UTC)

why only Linux ?

Why does this list only seem to contain Linux operating systems ? No every router is based on Linux.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluezy (talk • contribs) 09:10, 3 March 2010

Most have some Unix base or are proprietary. I believe that Windows Server versions can also route. Andyoutside (talk) 08:09, 12 November 2010 (UTC)

Kerio missing

Kerio Connect (was Winroute) is missing from the list. It is available as a virtual appliance for VMWare. www.kerio.com — Preceding unsigned comment added by BruceJStedman (talk • contribs) 19:40, 14 May 2012 (UTC)

IPFire missing

http://distrowatch.com/table.php?distribution=ipfire — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.121.48.98 (talk) 10:08, 30 May 2013 (UTC)

added NethServer

I added NethServer as a Firewall/UTM distributution to the list. No dedicated page for NethServer exists yet. I hope the NethServer community can work on this in the near future. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rob.bosch (talk • contribs) 11:26, 28 January 2016 (UTC)

More info

It would be nice if there'd be more separation in terms of free for personal use, free for commercial use, and so on.

And also, if we'd have a list of which of them have features such as QoS for example, it would be great.

Thanks! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.131.139.26 (talk) 23:31, 12 March 2016 (UTC)

Removal of OPNsense

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Mr.hmm you have removed OPNsense from this page several times and given the following reasons:

1. stop inserting OPNsense self-promotion
2. Stop abusing wikipedia
3. OPNsense is non-notable project which is known to abuse Wikipedia

I do not believe any of those to be true, would you please explain in more detail why you believe OPNsense does not have a right to be listed here. Here are some links that would seems to suggest this is a project that does belong on this page: OPNsense website OPNsense Forums OPNsense Github Deciso OPNsense Wikipedia DE OPNsense Distrowatch OPNsense FLOSS Weekly OPNsense Giovino1 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Across Wikipedia, if software doesn't have a Wikipedia article, then it typically gets removed from tables. • Sbmeirow • Talk • 13:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Sbmeirow - First, I'd like to see the Wikipedia policy that explains that having an article is a prerequisite to being included in a table, please point that out. To be clear, there is an existing Wikipedia article at https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/OPNsense, granted it's German, but I find it unbelievable that a page in English hasn't, at some point, been created. If it was created, that someone likely deleted it for their own purpose.

Second, for completeness, it should be included. The Wikipedia purpose page clearly states it's purpose as "acting as an encyclopedia, a comprehensive written compendium". Removing OPNSense because a user arbitrarily believes it to be self-promoting, abusive, or "non-notable" weakens credibility and accuracy of Wikipedia. I find it to be a valuable and viable tool and very notable, including many online articles that reference OPNSense, including Wikipedia articles. For the purpose of Wikipedia, it should be included in this table to make it a comprehensive compendium. If you wish to filter it to suit your own purpose, then you should find another site where that may be appropriate. I cannot use this list as it is currently filtered and tainted by biases and not allowed to be complete. ComputerRick (talk) 01:34, 24 November 2017 (UTC)

Sbmeirow- thank you for this feedback, I was not aware of this general rule. Giovino1 (talk) 14:39, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

I have removed three other entries with no articles. Another editor removed OPNsense again. Meters (talk) 22:25, 11 September 2016 (UTC)

That is - and I apologize beforehand for my bluntness - an incredibly stupid decision. I am a network admin in search of a firewall / router distribution, and I used this list as a reference. I would LOVED to have opnSense in this list two days ago, and I just stumbled on it by chance. I don't actually care that there seems to be an ugly war going on between those projects, and I also don't care *at all* whether the mentioned projectshave their own entry in WP. I just know that it would have been USEFUL to me to have opnSense in this list two days ago. So if you think these kind of lists are relevant, then please include the goddamn active distributions out there. And, while I'm on it, the entry for ... well, for example, pfSense, is really encyclopedia-worthy. Not. The-Me (talk) 20:28, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Removed two more with no articles. User:The-Me is welcome to write articles about any of the missing distributions. I won't hold my breath since it appears likely he is another one of the many SPAs trying to list OPNsense without an article. Meters (talk) 20:15, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, it's most likely one of their puppet accounts trying to promote OPNsense. Admins have intervened many times because of it. OPNsense is non-notable and there's no need to mention it. Mr.hmm (talk) 11:44, 4 May 2017 (UTC)

Unbelievable discussion right here! OPNSense definetly belongs into this list. Not having an article in wikipedia is definetly no reason for not being mentioned. If it would be common to do so, all entries in this list without article should be removed as well. But that would be stupid, because information would be lost, even if there is no article to that entry. FrankyFire (talk) 18:59, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@FrankyFire: listing only programs with Wikipedia articles is actually quite a good way of filtering them, as it provides a fixed boundary as to whether inclusion is warranted or not. If you can prove that OPNSense passes WP:GNG, feel free to write an article about it.

As a side note, the example you provided is not one to follow as that list is marked with a plethora of cleanup tags. Thanks — Quasar G. 19:21, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

@Quasar G.:,

I can purchase hardware specific to the OPNSense distro, and/or recommending this distro, at multiple locations including:

* http://www.pfwhardware.com/

* http://www.firewallhardware.it/

* https://www.applianceshop.eu/

* https://www.miniserver.it/

* https://www.pcengines.ch/

It is more beneficial to me, as a user, to know about the active OPNSense project, than it is to know about the defunct m0n0wall project.

Indeed, the Author of m0n0wall now directs people to the OPNSense project - http://m0n0.ch/wall/hardware.php

It seems pretty obvious to me, as an outsider without any investment in ANY of the products, that OPNSense certainly meets WP:GNG, and I'm happy to report this continued feud to Admins, if pfSense fans continue to vandalize this page as a result.

I've run pfSense myself for close to 10 years now, and was looking for replacement hardware when I stumbled across this feud. It is childish, and benefits no-one.

Additionally, @Sbmeirow:, as outlined above, OPNSense DOES have a wikipage, it just hasn't been translated from German yet. I do not know German, and am unfamiliar with wiki formatting, or else I'd do it myself.

Peter.dolkens (talk) 22:30, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

@Peter.dolkens: the software does not appear to pass the GNG, as seen by the outcome of this deletion discussion. I'm going to try and get the page protected, as well as opening a sockpuppet investigation regarding the suspiciously large amount of single-purpose accounts trying to add OPNSense to this list. In the meantime, I recommend you work on this draft. — Quasar G. 22:54, 31 May 2017 (UTC)

There was a wikipedia page (see here https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents&diff=prev&oldid=738942462 for more info). Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) is on a personal campaign to ensure that OPNSense is not allowed any presence on any page and has succeeded in deleting the page and references on multiple pages. If you check is contribs, you would see that seems to be his only mission, to promote pfSense and delete OPNSense. As to your claim that it's GNG, I would point you to the place where ensured that the original OPNSense article was deleted. He's abusing the system and for anyone to not look at his contribs and not be able to see that he's clearly acting in a fascist manner to suppress something he doesn't agree with, then I will not find a fair arena to be heard here and I have lost faith in in Wikipedia. Ignore the evidence, facts, and behavior of those involved and support censorship. ComputerRick (talk) 10:16, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

Actually, Mr hmm was not involved in the original deletion discussion at all. Perhaps if the various accounts that keep trying to add information about OPNsense to Wikipedia concentrated on writing an article about it that shows it passes GNG then the issue would be resolved. Black Kite (talk) 10:59, 26 November 2017 (UTC)

There is an OPNSense Wiki page, in German. I posted numerous articles, but apparently, they'll be ignored due to bias and summarily dismissed. Mr.hmm changed his name from Mnlth and he was a major factor in the deletion of the original OPNSense article, accusing many people of being sock accounts with only empty claims. His account was barely a month old when making these accusations in August of 2015. He has been relentless at monitoring and removing any reference on any page of OPNSense since his account was created. You can show me how to make my posts look pretty and I'll show you how to do real research, deal? When he removes OPNSense entries, without evidence, or any basis in reality, he claims that everyone is an SPA, owner of the company, sock, or something mean without consequence. By supporting him, you allow him to make baseless accusations, I'm only asking everyone to do their homework. His account was created in 2015, 6 months after the OPNSense release. Since that time, he has removed every reference of OPNSense from every possible place, while adding content to PfSense. I have no problem with SPAs, but in this case, his sole intent is to remove OPNSense from Wiki existence, that I find frustrating. He largely depends on the laziness and ignorance of others to get away with it, because the evidence is as simple as 2+2. Thanks. ComputerRick (talk) 07:12, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Did I nominate or remove the "original" OPNsense page? No. Did I remove it seven other times too? No. Just look at the deletion log and it will be clear OPNsense is abusing Wikipedia for years. That includes their own project people, like Joswp (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log) and their main developer netfitch (talk · contribs · deleted contribs · logs · filter log · block user · block log). Or their sock accounts from this page, Giovino1 and FrankyFire both of which are SPA's and sock accounts. So please stop with your baseless personal attacks. Oh and the fact that there is a German version of OPNsense proves I'm not here to remove all mentions of OPNsense on Wikipedia. But one might want to research which account has been editing it the most.--Mr.hmm (talk) 12:09, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I'm sorry to say that I have been editing in 2015 because of the direct actions of Mr.hmm (talk · contribs), but also stopped in that same year 2015 because he can get away with it easily. It's terribly frustrating. It's true that he did not delete the page, but the story is pfSense was being investigated for deletion and Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) brought both m0n0wall and OPNsense to the table for deletion as well, which conveniently ended in OPNsense removal. At that time not passing GNC was likely the case and I am not complaining about the decision, but now almost three years have passed for the OPNsense project and he has undoubtedly ensured that both article and mentions are effectively suppressed / censored on Wikipeda. One would think that at least the pfSense or m0n0wall page should mention a fork, especially when the m0n0wall founder Manuel Kasper recommended OPNsense as a successor. Mr.hmm (talk · contribs) also runs the OPNscam subreddit. Or you can see how pfSense at the very least tolerates Mr.hmm (talk · contribs)'s behaviour towards OPNsense on Wikipedia even when we reasonably reach out in their forums. Worst of all, Netgate, the company behind pfSense, has been acting in bad faith against the OPNsense project with a mock opnsense.com domain for multiple years. And one would think that when multiple Netgate affiliates can roam free to edit pfSense et al, OPNsense is not allowed to do the same. It's at least favouritism, at the worst bullying. And when any editors think the behaviour here on Wikipedia is purely coincidentally, I would like to challenge their view and at least demand fair and equal treatment for both projects. Have a great day! :) Netfitch (talk) 12:44, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Remarkably, OPNsense main developer who has been using wikipedia against the rules come to defend himself. How does one apparently inactive account appear right after ComputerRick? I'm not going to even respond to these accusations but just go straight to report you and ComputerRick.--Mr.hmm (talk) 12:49, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

You fail to make a relevant point and unless you want to elaborate please stop making allegations that are a mere response to your malicious actions (like trying to defend your years of deleting OPNsense). The point is that you cannot possibly censor and defame OPNsense forever as new evidence is uncovered like the WIPO ruling and paints a clear picture of your intentions. Attempting to destroy the work of others is probably not a worthwhile dedication on Wikipedia or anywhere else. Have an even greater day! :) Netfitch (talk) 13:13, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

I fail to see how WIPO ruling for trademark dispute paints my intentions as I was not in dispute and I didn't even own the domain you are referring to. It does appear to me that you're trying to use the domain dispute as an attempt to justify your own self-promotion on Wikipedia. You have been reported to admins.--Mr.hmm (talk) 13:40, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Computer Rick, I have just closed the ANI filing on this, and I will say; the only laziness here is that no-one has bothered to write a GNG-compliant article on OPNsense. If you (or anyone else) could do that, we would not be having this conversation. Black Kite (talk) 18:33, 29 November 2017 (UTC)

Per the WP:GNG, where it states "If a topic does not meet these criteria but still has some verifiable facts, it might be useful to discuss it within another article.", that should dictate that this, being another article, with verifiable facts, warrants the addition of OPNSense under the same rules that you are using to prevent it's inclusion. ComputerRick (talk) 21:00, 30 November 2017 (UTC)

References

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protected edit request on 29 December 2017

(1) IPFire distro is missing a link to their website: https://www.ipfire.org/ URL.
(2) Under "Architecture", IPFire support x86_64 out of the box.
(3) Descriptios should include the following keywords: Web-Based, Internet Gateway, Router, Firewall & Wireless Access Point capable.

The latest version is extremely polished and sufficient for even a novice user out of the box. Installs via USB stick. Extensive documentation in their wiki and active and helpful community. Full WAP support.

Note: pfsense (BSD) is fast morphing into a commercial beast and has a broken implementation of SIP behind NAT, IPFire fills a critical need. pfsense is extremely picky about wifi cards. Ragarwal74 (talk) 20:06, 29 December 2017 (UTC)

Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. Regards to each point, 1) the link is already in the note for the "description" column, 2) X86 includes x8664 so not change is needed, and 3)Wikipedia is not for advertising or keyword-seeding and the promotional language and keyword request is inappropriate under the core content policies. Eggishorn (talk) (contrib) 23:00, 29 December 2017 (UTC)