Modern software, particularly in the open-source ecosystem, has become increasingly complex. While the open-source community offers a wealth of resources, getting meaningful help when issues arise can be a challenge. This isn’t to say that help isn’t available—you can ask for it—but don’t expect more than basic guidance. Often, the assistance comes in the form of blog posts, which are frequently unhelpful. Many of these posts simply regurgitate the same information without providing context or actionable solutions. While there are exceptions, the majority of blogs on open-source topics are, frankly, noise.
Take Pi-hole as an example. It’s widely praised for blocking ads and enhancing privacy. However, integrating it with a router like pfSense over time can lead to complications. pfSense itself has become overly complex, with feature descriptions that lack clarity and fail to explain how different components interact. For instance, imagine you’ve configured DHCP DNS settings for an interface or specific machines to point to Pi-hole. Years later, you encounter an issue—perhaps you need to rebuild pfSense and restore a configuration. If Pi-hole is offline but the restored config still references it, you might spend hours or even days troubleshooting why your internet connection isn’t working. This problem is exacerbated if you’re not actively monitoring Pi-hole or if you’re urgently trying to restore internet access via pfSense. You might test connectivity, only to fail repeatedly without realizing the root cause. After painstakingly reviewing every setting, you finally notice that a specific machine or interface is still pointing to the inaccessible Pi-hole. Even after resolving one instance, you might miss another buried setting.
pfSense presents its own set of challenges. I recently transitioned from a virtualized instance of pfSense to a hardware installation—a process that became a nightmare. A word of caution: avoid virtualizing pfSense. While it may save on hardware costs and power consumption, the drawbacks are significant. If your virtualization server needs a reboot, you lose internet access entirely. Yes, virtualization offers benefits like easy backups alongside other VMs and containers, but when issues arise, the frustration and potential financial loss (e.g., missed client opportunities due to downtime) far outweigh the savings. I spent days resolving such problems, which could have been avoided with dedicated hardware.
Even after reinstalling pfSense on hardware, I encountered further issues. Port forwarding refused to work, and wireless devices connected to the access point but couldn’t reach the internet, displaying “unreachable” errors on every page. After days of troubleshooting, a serendipitous discovery revealed the cause. I attempted to install a Solarflare network card and drivers, only for pfSense to crash on boot with what appeared to be a kernel panic. Unable to proceed, I mounted the pfSense boot drive in Linux to edit the configuration. However, the ZFS filesystem used by pfSense proved difficult to navigate. Online documentation on mounting ZFS pools was vague, with no clear guidance on pfSense-specific pool names. After significant effort, I located the config.xml file in a /cf/conf directory, but copying it to my home folder failed due to ZFS remapping issues. Eventually, I used a flash drive to transfer the file, only to face further hurdles during reinstallation. pfSense stopped recognizing my second NIC (for the LAN), and no amount of troubleshooting—swapping RAM, changing hardware, or reinstalling—resolved the issue until I switched the boot device. Miraculously, this fixed the wireless connectivity and LAN NIC issues. The sheer time and effort spent on what turned out to be a drive compatibility problem was staggering.
The lack of contextual documentation in open-source communities compounds these frustrations. Forum posts and guides often fail to explain the purpose or interplay of various settings in tools like pfSense. Every troubleshooting path seems to lead to more problems, creating a cascade of issues. Open-source developers often appear to believe that users should reverse-engineer their software rather than providing clear explanations. As someone with over 20 years of experience with open-source tools, I can attest that this approach generates significant online noise. New software versions introduce new problems, leading to a proliferation of outdated or irrelevant advice. Some community members answering questions may even display dismissive attitudes, offering unhelpful responses that further clutter the information landscape.
When you’ve invested years building systems around a specific technology, a failure can be catastrophic. Reconstructing everything as it was becomes a daunting task, especially when you can’t recall every decision made during the initial setup. Expecting thorough documentation from colleagues or adherence to standards is often wishful thinking. The result is a frustrating cycle of trial and error.
Until open-source developers prioritize creating user-friendly products over merely functional ones, users will continue to struggle. If developers receive financial support for their work, they should allocate a portion of their time to engaging with the community and providing context—explaining what to consider at each stage and the intended purpose of features. This should be a minimum standard. Without it, the average user will shy away from adopting these tools, and experienced technicians will hesitate to recommend them.