[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>
 To:  Adam Nellemann <adam at nellemann dot nu>
 Cc:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Beta 1.1b10
 Date:  Sun, 30 May 2004 10:31:10 +0200
On 30.05.2004 06:02 +0200, Adam Nellemann wrote:

> - The disabled color of block rules look VERY similar to the
> (enabled) color of reject rules. Perhaps making all the disabled
> rules a bit more "transparent" (lighter) would help (and also help
> distinguish enabled and disabled rules more easily).

Huh? A case of badly calibrated display? I can very easily tell them
from each other on my TFTs. Besides, the reject icons were
contributed, not done by me (isn't it nice when you can put the blame
on somebody else ;). But I might just make the text for display rules
gray in a future release.

> - In the last couple of betas (don't remember when I first noticed
> it?) there has been only two CPU load numbers on the
> "Status/System" page, is this intentional?

No, it's a mistake. And the users figure shouldn't show up anymore.

> - I've noticed that you use POST in (some of?) your form submits.
> While I'm aware that there are some advantages to this, it would be
> somewhat simpler when scripting changes to the m0n0wall
> configuration if GET submits could be used instead. That is if
> there aren't a good reason for your choice of POST?

With GET it's just too easy to accidentally repost a form by using
the back/forward buttons in the browser.

> - It is still quite cumbersome to move rules up and down as
> typically you need to move several rules several positions, which
> takes forever (in fact sometimes I actually find it quicker to
> download the config.xml, cut'n'paste the rules and then upload it
> again!) While not of great importance, it is something which most
> users will be bothered by from time to time (to a greater or lesser
> extent depending on their m0n0wall usage, of course).

Maybe, sometime...

- Manuel