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.