Chris Buechler schrieb am 19. June 2006:
>This brings up another point.... What is m0n0wall 1.3 to be? At this
>point, with the description Manuel gave, you could take pfsense,
>s/pfsense/m0n0wall/, change the colors, and almost be there.
Indeed that raises the question: why not melt the m0n0wall into the
pfSense project and work together? Instead of copying pfSense?
Maybe it's time to think about some general directions? About what the
userbase will do?
>Here's my thought on what it should be, and some changes that'll be
>necessary, IMO, for the initial 1.3 release.
Sorry to say, but that sounds like "pfSense Light" to me. Currently I
see the higher networking throughput on m0n0 (especially on embbeded
platform), but that advantage will be gone with FBSD 6.x
So my questions would be:
1. what is better on future m0n0 1.3 than on future pfSense 1.0?
2. why should users stay with m0n0 and not switch to pfSense?
>(though there were other circumstances, like FreeBSD issues that have
>since been resolved, that have held things up as well).
Which makes me wonder why other BSD flavours were never evaluated.
<cynical>If the choice for FBSD was because of driver support, you
should consider Windows XP, it has most hardware support </cynical>
Honestly: the poll for OS was (of course) answered with the most
popular OS, I am 100% sure that if you had put WinXP as choice on that
poll, this would have gotten 60% of user votes.
I am sorry if this might sound like a rant, but I'd really like to
know where m0n0 is going and why users should stick with it.
Best regards Frederick