[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Lee Sharp" <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org>
 To:  <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 00:05:41 -0500
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 

> 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.