Paul> I respectfully disagree, John...  I think Monowall should
Paul> provide as easy-to-use and as polished of an interface as
Paul> possible...

I'm glad we're having this discussion.  And I'd like to modify my
stand to be the following actually:

 - full SNMP support, with TRAPS.  This is key to me.
 - the Memory/CPU graph could be in something less dynamic which is
   more widely supported in browsers. 

Paul> Monowall shouldn't be a project that just techie guys like us
Paul> use.  It should attract others who are interested in a hardware
Paul> firewall.  I know that when I first looked at a standalone
Paul> firewall for home use I was attracted to the Watchguard units
Paul> because they were easy to use and had a decent looking web
Paul> interface.  Only after I got my SOHO6 I found out the
Paul> limitations that it has.  If Monowall keeps the interface easy
Paul> to navigate and use, I think it will only grow in popularity.

I agree, keeping it simple to use is a good thing.  

Paul> As for SVG, I think we should keep it...  I'm almost certain
Paul> that the new Firefox beta (1.5) has built-in support for SVG...
Paul> Adding SVG support to IE was as easy as following the link in
Paul> Monowall.  I think adding it to Safari was equally easy.
Paul> (Though I think the latest version of Safari might have native
Paul> support, but I'm not sure)

I'm not wild about SVG, though as more and more browsers support it
natively, it will become a moot point.

My desires for m0n0 are:

	- full SNMP support
	- NTP server
	- better VOIP shaping support
	- WRAP support continued
	- logout button on Web GUI.  I know this has been hashed
	  before, but I still think it's wrong.

John