[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Holger Bauer" <Holger dot Bauer at citec dash ag dot de>
 To:  "Bart Smit" <bit at pipe dot nl>, <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall-dev] $1000 prize for FreeBSD 6.1 port of m0n0wall
 Date:  Fri, 23 Jun 2006 03:05:23 +0200
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Bart Smit [mailto:bit at pipe dot nl]
> Sent: Friday, June 23, 2006 1:25 AM
> To: m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall-dev] $1000 prize for FreeBSD 6.1 port 
> of m0n0wall
> 
> 
> On 22 jun , at 23:41, Scott Ullrich wrote:
> > So really m0n0wall has its place still in the embedded arena.
> 
> To my understanding, m0n0wall not only "has its place" there, but was
> specifically intended for embedded devices.
> 
> Indeed, the platforms I run it on are: mostly Soekris net4501, and
> net4801 or WRAP where I need more power. All of these have 8 to 32
> MB flash cards.
> 
> > these things since we are really targeting "bigger and better
> > hardware"
> 
> Are we? Now that would be a pity!
> 
> If that is indeed the case, I would appreciate an explicit mention
> of this change of policy.
> 

You misunderstood Scott. When he uses "we" he's talking about pfSense there(as he's the
projectleader).

So what he wanted to say with that:
m0n0wall: target is embedded, small footprint, ...
pfSense (we): target is bigger and better hardware, thus no melting of pfSense and m0n0 intended.

Holger

____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit