Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 38
  1. #1
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default Thanks, but it's time to go..

    Untangle, I tried.. I tried to love you. But you hurt me with this last one. I gotta move on: http://www.oxygenimpaired.com/untangle-unravels

    Seriously fellas. UT has a good thing going here and I hope it succeeds, but why play fast and loose with the core distro configs? Not cool.

  2. #2
    Untangle Junkie dmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Carlos, CA
    Posts
    17,747

    Default

    Sorry, If you make unsupported modifications and then upgrade this will happen.

    Thats why we put warnings everywhere when you log into terminal and why we insist that making changes at the terminal level are not supported. It has nothing to do with "warranty."

    Feel free to do it, but it will break.
    Attention: Support and help on the Untangle Forums is provided by volunteers and community members like yourself.
    If you need Untangle support please call or email support@untangle.com

  3. #3
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Yes.. I get it. I should have known better than to try to do anything else on an Untangle box than what's explicitly provided by the instruction manual. I colored outside the lines and I got slapped for it.

    Come on though guys.. I realize dinking around in the vm would expect to screw things up and be overwritten, but the core distro configs, really? Hacking up a little extra functionality is the innovative core of most open source based projects. I posted all my mods back for the community. You can't leave a little room for us to do this by honoring standard practices for updating the core OS? Seems to be a divergence from your project's own open source roots.

    And what's the point of being able to list "protected" files in the admin interface if UT's just going to piss on them anyway? If there's certain file protections that UT's going to ignore, would it be so hard to toss us a little documentation so we'd know in advance? I read though all the docs/wiki/forum ahead of time and tried hard only to customize the system in ways shouldn't have any reason to run afoul of updates, so I was a little surprised when UT curb stomped on the base Debian standards with the update.

    Take the feedback as you wish.. but in this market of growing competitors it is offered as food for thought. Not to bash.

    Guess I'll take my crayons and go now. Thanks.

  4. #4
    Untangle Ninja Mathiau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Costa Frickn' Rica
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    if they leave room are you going to be the one person who goes out to sites who have a UT box that goes down because someone modded something they didn't need to and screwed up, thus resulting in a dead box that UT would now have to support cause they allowed you to do it? Or because untangle ignore a file because of permissions you changed so now the upgrade fails half way and again your looking at a dead box.

    Untangle isnt meant to be an open source "have some head room to play around with" box, if you want that go install OBSD / FBSD and built your system from the ground up.

    UT is about stability, and for people who dont want to play around with core files, because they have no need to. I like to play with everything i can, but i leave untangle alone.

    I am sure if you went over to pfsense and starting playing around with core files, and update would scrap that as well, or other UTM systems.
    Last edited by Mathiau; 01-03-2012 at 02:19 PM.
    kv-2 | UT 11.0.1 | Dell R610 Server | Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz Quad Cores | 24Gb DDR3 ECC | 1 Intel QPort NIC | Integrated Broadcom QP | Dell Perc 4i | 6 x 73G 2.5 15k SAS raid 10 | 100mb/100mb | 30mb/30Mb

  5. #5
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default

    @Mathiau - Let's not have an argument I never tried to make. It should always be clear to any client that tinkering with stuff would void a support agreement and I've never tried to say UT should maintain or support user customizations. What I am saying is that they could at least avoid stomping on standards and intentionally breaking things they wouldn't have to by taking just a small amount of care.

    I'm not even sure how to comment on "Untangle isnt meant to be an open source". The system is built on the back of Debian and packages provided by the opensource community. Most the core UT code is GPL'd.

    And no, I'm not on to pfSense, I'm testing out another solution that's based on Ubuntu Server and initially appears to provide a more clearly defined interface with the core OS through standard package management and typical expected linux behaviors (and documentation that explains the relationship). I'm not going to mention names as I have no intention of pulling users away from UT (even if anyone cared what I think). UT is a good solution and I'm thankful I had the opportunity to use it. I personally just think it would be even better if they played a little nicer with the general hacking community to allow tweaks for those with the experience and environment to do so. "One size fits all" has never been the OS community way.
    Last edited by thump; 01-03-2012 at 02:46 PM.

  6. #6
    Untangle Ninja Mathiau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Costa Frickn' Rica
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    It isnt an argument, but it is what would happen if they left things the way you want them

    What I am saying is that they could at least avoid stomping on standards and intentionally breaking things they wouldn't have to by taking just a small amount of care.
    so by not stomping on standards and allowing people to change things, which will result in UT it's self possibly breaking is a better option?

    this isnt an OS, it is a UTM, it has a specific job to perform, and this allowing people to do what they want with it would result in possible down boxes and thus creating headaches for many people who aren't experienced like your self deciding to play around with things.

    You have to remember, the hardcore users are far and few between, we are a minority, i am willing to be that %99 of UT income come from boxes hosted for people who can barely SSH into the system...
    Last edited by Mathiau; 01-03-2012 at 02:49 PM.
    kv-2 | UT 11.0.1 | Dell R610 Server | Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz Quad Cores | 24Gb DDR3 ECC | 1 Intel QPort NIC | Integrated Broadcom QP | Dell Perc 4i | 6 x 73G 2.5 15k SAS raid 10 | 100mb/100mb | 30mb/30Mb

  7. #7
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathiau View Post
    It isnt an argument, but it is what would happen if they left things the way you want them
    Then someone better go tell RedHat, Ubuntu and a slew of other businesses built on OS projects that their model doesn't work.

    It's simple, you want an Ubuntu business support contract, then you'll be limited in your freedom to configure/customize. But for those that don't need a support contract, you're free to customize at-will. Nobody from Canonical's going to come help if you break things, but they won't do it intentionally either. Everything is documented, including the update behaviors, and everything follows LSB standards to the extent possible.

    Quote Originally Posted by Mathiau View Post
    so by not stomping on standards and allowing people to change things, which will result in UT it's self possibly breaking is a better option?
    If you define and document the VM hooks and dependencies then folks can easily make their own decisions. Again, the difference is between commercial supported product and community. UT is certainly free to ignore the greater OS community and make a go only on commercial product, but that business model hasn't proven successful for most that have tried. To me it feels like UT tolerates the OS community because they have to, but would much rather see us go away. I got the hint, and won't bother trying to contribute where it's not wanted.

  8. #8
    Untangle Junkie dmorris's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Location
    San Carlos, CA
    Posts
    17,747

    Default

    You are deducing our stance towards the open source community and our desire for your contributions from our upgrade policy? You keep asking about documentation. It *is* clearly documented that changes made at the command line are not supported. You chose to make them anyway. I know you saw the warning, because you set a shell password which requires you to read the warning *every* time you open the terminal.

    It is also quite clear that dpkg is set to non-interactive and aggressive options are --force-confnew and --force-yes are used on dist-upgrades, and that will clobber file-level changes. You keep talking about Ubuntu and Debian but their upgrade process is irrelevant, this is Untangle. It is not Debian nor Ubuntu. (Maybe you're confused because is uses dpkg?) Untangle upgrades happen 99.9% of the time in the background and are non-interactive processes. Unlike Debian and Ubuntu, It can not ask questions of the user because the user is not there. The whole upgrade process has a different design. If you disagree with this design, thats fine, but your crazy wild deductions about our stance to the open source community and your contributions based on this are just silly.
    Attention: Support and help on the Untangle Forums is provided by volunteers and community members like yourself.
    If you need Untangle support please call or email support@untangle.com

  9. #9
    Untangler
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Posts
    39

    Default

    @dmorris - I'm not making that statement based on "upgrade policy". I'm making it based on the statements that any customization "will break". I can understand "not supported", but that's vastly different from "will break".

    How about "here's a community guide to customize UT (at your own risk and not supported)". Toss a page/section on the wiki that documents behaviors such as the "--force-confnew" and others that would need modified if folks want to do CLI customization of the system to add a few packages. Simply telling folks "no modification" and hanging no trespassing signs all over the system is not embracing open source. Neither is putting up a "hacks" section just to post "it's going to break" across half the threads.

    I'm glad to hear you clarify "we're not Debian". I wish I would have understood that better before starting with UT. I (and likely others) only considered trying UT because it's based on an open, standards based operating system like Debian. I naively figured that would give me the flexibility I'm accustomed to with a linux platform and UT would "play nice" with community tweaks. I didn't realized going in you guys considered it a closed platform, and that's my fault; but in all fairness, your guys' OS "marketing" paints a different picture:
    http://www.untangle.com/About-Us/The-Untangle-Story

    Look.. again (again, again, again)...... I think UT is a good project with lots of potential. I personally feel it would be better off and develop more quickly with a more open approach to the "community edition" side of things.. but that's just my two cents. I can be wrong (hell, ask my wife, she'll tell you). It's your project, you'll do what you want.. this is just the honest opinions of one lonely user trying to provide some feedback.

  10. #10
    Untangle Ninja Mathiau's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    Location
    Costa Frickn' Rica
    Posts
    1,636

    Default

    they may not be so open because they do need a form of revenue to come in to pay for costs, so if they opened things too much they would become moonwall or another project which sites tale, even pfsense, for years on the same version with little to no innovation.
    kv-2 | UT 11.0.1 | Dell R610 Server | Intel Xeon 2.8Ghz Quad Cores | 24Gb DDR3 ECC | 1 Intel QPort NIC | Integrated Broadcom QP | Dell Perc 4i | 6 x 73G 2.5 15k SAS raid 10 | 100mb/100mb | 30mb/30Mb

Page 1 of 4 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

SEO by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2