[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Stefan Frank <Mono dot Developer at RootServices dot Biz>
 To:  MonoWall-Developers List <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] The future - summary
 Date:  Thu, 10 Nov 2005 07:37:50 +0100
Well ... Small question - whats wrong with FreeBSD 4.11 that
you (Manuel?) and/or others want to upgrade/change the OS?
Shouldnt it be a Word like "Never touch a running system" what
the OS point means?

The resaults from a "Which OS,would you like m0n0wall to use
in the future?" survey do intertesting me. If someone will create it
feel free to go a head ;)

For the minimum hardware requirements i guess they should stay
the same. Or (thats better - but maybe make some more work) to
create for the small systems the images in the same way and create
"bigger" Images for PC Systems (maybe with more support for
fast networks/server systems ? ) ... "1.2 will of course continue" is
good to hear. Maybe sometimes there are a couple things to change
to make it more useable. I will post some ideas soon to the list soon.
However its mostly perfect and currently 1.2 fill nearly all my needs ;)

> Writing a daemon would also include developing or choosing an
> appropriate protocol, which adds at least one more layer. To be honest,
> I think it's unnecessary bloat for a router/firewall.

For my little opinion its the same point of my view. I still will wait for a
answer way it should be good to change to a other os then FreeBSD. it makes
me laugh to see the talk about BSD or maybe Linux as OS :) For my self i
love FreeBSD and i hope it will be sill the os for Monowall :)

> I'm an absolute convinced Linux addicted but as security engineer I will 
> never rely on Linux for firewalling !!!
> Mr. Torvald, you can now shoot on me... :-)

LOL i cant say it better. A good Friend sayed to me that Linux has some 
deficits
with bridged Firewalling? I didnt checked whether its true or not. Maybe 
someone
from here - who knows it better? - can say something more about that?

> this allows us the flexibility in creating UIs in any programming language 
> as well as platforms to configure a m0n0wall. a standalone windows client, 
> anyone ?

I can´t say much about keep php or not (i am not really "the programming 
guru" :)
A Windows configuration software for monowall is (maybe) a good idea for all
who need/want it but for my self i have only the question - why do this 
work when
a webinterface is there that exellent works? I dont like windows so for 
egoistic reasons
i can say that i dont care for that. However if that can be added to 
monowall and someone
like to code a windows app to allow configurations so its a advantage to 
make it much
more interested for the windoze world :)

> i'm perhaps biased in this in that i wouldnt like to see m0n0wall move away 
> from freebsd. admittedly the jump from 4.x to 5.x has caused problems and 
> 5.x is not the best release of freebsd around. however, these are being 
> fixed for 6.x. many people (me included) are in fact skipping 5.x for an 
> eventual bump of 4.x to 6.x directly when it becomes a litte more 
> production ready.

I agree more or less with that :o)

-- 
Best regards,
Stefan Frank

Looking for Monowall Adjustment?
http://M0n0WaLL.RootServices.Biz