[ 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


>>> 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?

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  


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