On 6/22/06, Frederick Page <fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de> wrote:
> 1. what is better on future m0n0 1.3 than on future pfSense 1.0?
Well right now m0n0wall has an upgrade facility for embedded devices.
Due to the size of the compact flash images on pfSense we are
requiring a complete reflash since sending a 20+ meg update file to a
low memory device seems to cause a lot of problems. Asking the user
to send 2 update files is possible but a major inconvenience.
> 2. why should users stay with m0n0 and not switch to pfSense?
A couple of reasons come to mind:
1. The upgrade problem that I mentioned earlier
2. m0n0wall is a really trimmed down version of pfSense essentially
requiring only 8 megs. pfSense right now requires a 64 meg image at
the minimum. It is possible to trim further but we get back to
pfSenses focus being for "bigger" devices.
3. pfSense requires 128 megs of ram at the minimum due to fast-cgi and
some of the ways we handle filter reload operations and such (all of
which will be addressed down the road but they are still problems at
So really m0n0wall has its place still in the embedded arena. And
really I could argue that I don't pay nearly as much attention to
these things since we are really targeting "bigger and better