[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  w dot plein at gmail dot com
 To:  m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] RE: [m0n0wall] M0n0cache
 Date:  Tue, 13 Dec 2005 19:36:50 -0800
At 07:17 PM 12/13/2005, Jayden Phillips wrote:
>I really like this idea it great! But I think we need to make certain it is
>integrated with m0n0wall, so I would suggest it would run on the same core,
>once we figure out what m0n0wall is going to run on. And as others have
>said, make it modular. If you need any testing, just shout!

OK, who is going to play "feature creep cop"? <grin>

PFSense was the fork to go for "fat" modules. I'm concerned that if we try 
to put it inside m0n0wall, the embedded platforms will get pushed to the 
back burner...

I'm ~all~ for using m0n0 as a platform (GUI, etc.) for a different embedded 
application (squid vs. firewall). But if they need to go together, it makes 
the base image fatter (needs to accept more modularity) and potentially 
more buggy (more lines of code mean more bugs).

I came back to m0n0wall for a reason! I love pfsense too, and if I was 
running on something with more power than a WRAP, I'd probably run pfsense.

w dot plein at gmail dot com