[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Bart Smit" <bit at pipe dot nl>
 To:  "Jonathan De Graeve" <Jonathan dot DeGraeve at imelda dot be>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch, m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall-dev] SUGGESTION: M0n0wall flashsize and Recommended memory
 Date:  Fri, 15 Sep 2006 08:33:01 +0200 (CEST)
Jonathan,

I would hate to see m0n0wall leave the embedded arena.

> Currently we came at a point of being stuck with the limitations of
> flashsize and 64MB memory.

It is hard to maintain that 64 MB of memory is a small amount for the
kind of functionality we have in m0n0wall. I would say that part or
most of the blame is on the fact that we are using a general-purpOS
not especially geared towards embedded applications.

This is an important difference with commercial appliances: they have
a strong motivation to put effort into squeezing their images and
footprint, as it means lower hardware cost for a large number of
boxes, which has a strong influence on their bottom-line. m0n0wall
development lacks such motivation, as hardware cost is external to the
project. This isn't going to change, unless small footprint is made a
prominent stated goal.

> usage. The current recommended is 64, it will become 96/128MB. But the
> survey tells us 27% has < 128MB and I think its possible to upgrade
> flash as wel as memory.

Nope. None of my 4501's have expandable memory.

> People with less memory can still use the current images but people
> with the minimum amount can benefit the changes.

And lack any important updates and fixes to current code? :-(

Rather than leaving the "small memory" people behind, I would suggest
a split between an "embedded" and a "non-embedded" version, the latter
being a superset of the first, and both being maintained.

Hey what's this then? du0wall? ;-)

B