[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Alex M" <radiussupport at lrcommunications dot net>
 To:  "'Mono Dev List'" <m0n0wall dash dev at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall-dev] RE: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for hardware project
 Date:  Sat, 10 Mar 2007 13:36:51 -0500
Well just looked up that 10$ board it runs Broadcom 125 Mhz for MIIPS. There
are no manufacturers currently using any Broadcom's chips for stoked oem



-----Original Message-----
From: Alex M [mailto:radiussupport at lrcommunications dot net] 
Sent: Saturday, March 10, 2007 12:56 PM
To: 'Mono Dev List'
Subject: [m0n0wall-dev] RE: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall]
Support for hardware project

Ok that the moment we down to $100 for WP18,
I still looking for something closer to $50 

3 mode manufacturers to call

I also found our old project where we made the board for $10, I have to find
who was the manufacturer and if they would be able to increase flash, since
that board had only 1mb



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim at netgate dot com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:44 PM
To: Alex M
Cc: Monowall Support List
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for
hardware project


On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Alex M wrote:

>
>
>>> But you're the one that proposed using VIA boards and second-source
>>> ethernet cards and wanted to make the centerpiece of the discussion
>>> "price".
>
> No, that was Lee talking about VIA board, I only concerned about price

K.

>>> I presume that the members of the list want to discuss the
>>> development of m0n0wall, and do NOT wish the discussion to devolve
>>> into a "general solutions for service providers list"
>
> Well I say there is a big cance to end up with Intel CPU that  
> doesn't not
> support X86, in that case even if we can get the board for $20,  
> some one
> would have to put all mono files on another version of BSD, so that  
> would be
> a developers part too. And, and if there will be no one willing to  
> do that
> the search for better pricing will do no good as community wont get  
> the
> benefit if they can not install mono on it.

Are you saying its a big 'chance' (risk) to use an Intel CPU that  
doesn't execute x86 instructions, or that its a big "change"
to do so?

Did you know that support for the Intel ixp42x CPUs (specifically the  
gateworks boards) has been MFCed to FreeBSD 6.2?
http://freshbsd.org/2007/02/26/23/13/10

The biggest problem now is getting the requisite packages to go  
through a cross-compiler (harder than it looks) or to build a native
"build" environment.   Currently I'm getting one of these to run  
FreeBSD 6.2:  http://www.intel.com/design/storage/sb.htm

Though the Freecom box could be interesting as well.

Running a native build environment 'fixes' the issue of getting the  
various packages to run through a cross compiler, modulo byte- 
ordering issues
possible for some things.

pfSense is being put on the Avilia boards.   I fully expect that  
m0n0wall will follow.   Since most of the Avila boards have a CF  
socket, and since the work has completed to allow the FreeBSD kernel  
to boot from the on-board (non-CF) flash, installing pfSense (or  
m0n0) will be no more difficult
than loading a CF with a pre-compiled image and using tftp to load  
the kernel in the on-board flash.

Eliminating the CF socket (with a custom m0n0wall image) and tftp-ing  
that into the on-board flash (assuming it can be made to fit in 16MB)  
would allow the use of freebsd/m0n0 on the single-socket Gateworks  
board.

Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch


---------------------------------------------------------------------
To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash dev dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch