Sorry if you felt like I was criticizing, believe me that wasn't my
intention. All I was trying to do was to point out the differences
between m0n0 and pfSense and how what was being talked about seemed to
fit much better into the pfSense way of doing things. I can see how
pfSense is a much better tool in many situations, just like m0n0 is a
better too in many situations, wouldn't suggest that either is better.
Out of interest, which things that I pointed out will change before
the 1.0 release, because I really didn't seem them as bugs but
features. As I said, tried pfSense once and was very impressed with
it, a lot of very cool features, however I realised that m0n0 suited
me better so changed back. Again, not a criticism, was most impressed
with what I saw and hopefully some of the features will find there way
across to m0n0 once it's settled into 6.1.
On 15/09/06, Scott Ullrich <sullrich at gmail dot com> wrote:
> On 9/15/06, Dan Bond <dan dot bond at gmail dot com> wrote:
> > Yes, sorry if I was unclear, I wasn't questioning that, I think it's
> > one of the most useful features of running from a ramdisk. Much as I
> > can see the pfSense method makes things easier for developers and it's
> > simpler for users to fiddle with the system, I personally prefer the
> > way m0n0 does things and wouldn't want it to change. As I say, I can
> > see the value in maybe offering a method by which images can be
> > customized in a simple, menu driven manner, however that really is way
> > way way down the order of importance, a long way behind getting a
> > FreeBSD 6.1 version of m0n0 out and into testing.
> A lot of the issues you where seeing was fixed recently and was bugs.
> Please give us time for 1.0 before making these harsh of criticisms.
> We haven't even hit RC3 yet.