Same here, my m0n0 with the longest uptime (see http://img.m0n0.ch/gallery/171.jpg + some weeks as
this is not a recent screenshot) is still a beta and never had any issues (serving IPSEC, PPTP,
Trafficshaping, Firewalling for a remote office with clients completely working at the main
location). It runs fine since it was set up without changing/restarting anything, only 2 PPTP User
changes happened during that time.

However I roll out new systems with the most recent version of m0n0wall usually.

Holger

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Chris Dickens [mailto:chris at object dash zone dot net]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 3:50 PM
> To: 'Lee Sharp'; m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: RE: [m0n0wall-dev] $1000 prize for FreeBSD 6.1 port 
> of m0n0wall
> 
> 
> Haha - why would anyone be taking your hammer away?  Nobody 
> said you needed
> to stop using the existing m0n0wall version you have.  I'm 
> still using m0n0
> v1.0 in my primary firewall because I need nothing from newer 
> releases - and
> I don't fix anything that isn't broken.  :-)
> 
> --Chris
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Lee Sharp [mailto:leesharp at hal dash pc dot org] 
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 1:06 AM
> To: m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall-dev] $1000 prize for FreeBSD 6.1 port 
> of m0n0wall
> 
> From: "Joe N." <jnardone at gmail dot com>
> > Frederick Page wrote:
> >> Indeed that raises the question: why not melt the m0n0wall into the
> >> pfSense project and work together? Instead of copying pfSense?
> 
> > My biggest problem with pfSense is footprint.  I want to be 
> able to run 
> > this in RAM and not need a hard disk or large solid-state 
> storage to hold 
> > it.  I wouldn't mind a merged project, but only if there 
> was a "slim" 
> > version that was essentially the core M0n0wall functionality.
> 
> The small footprint and running in ram is a deal breaker for 
> me.  I have a 
> mix of HD and CF, but my largest CF is 16mb, and some are 
> 8mb.  (ram is 
> 128-256)  The fact that a running firewall will not die from 
> an HD failure 
> is important.  It also aids in troubleshooting.  Sudden flake 
> without a save
> 
> flash or reboot?  It HAS to be cpu or ram.  Runs fine, but 
> dies on a save, 
> flash or reboot?  HD/Cf died...  Runs for a while and crashes 
> regular?  Heat
> 
> problem or power supply.  You have to love that.  With 
> appropriate spares, 
> and a library of config files, I can have a downed box up in 
> the time it 
> takes to get there.
> 
> All that said, a little melting would be a good thing.  In 
> some cases a 
> bigger platform with easy plugins would be helpful.  Perhaps 
> a bidirectional
> 
> config file upgrade tool would be made.  I am all for having 
> lots of tools 
> in a toolbox, and one that is familiar is better.  But don't 
> take away my 
> hammer!
> 
> > ps: and no, given a choice of Windows, I still would have 
> picked FreeBSD 
> > because that's the lowest risk AND greatest reward platform 
> for most of 
> > the requirements gathered during Manuel's poll.
> 
> One of the benefits to me was that it is NOT a common 
> platform.  Popular 
> platforms are the first ones hacked.
> 
>                                 Lee 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> 
> 

____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit