[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Jesse Guardiani <jesse at wingnet dot net>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: Re: FreeBSD 5.3 Released
 Date:  Sat, 20 Nov 2004 15:16:47 -0500
Manuel Kasper wrote:

> On 19.11.2004 16:22 -0500, Jesse Guardiani wrote:
> 
>> Sorry to revive an old thread like this, but this is on my mind a
>> lot now that FreeBSD 5.3 is RELEASE quality and so far I haven't
>> seen any mention of m0n0wall developers considering 5.x yet.
> 
> Not true. I've mentioned 5.x several times in the past, including
> here:
> 
> <http://m0n0.ch/wall/list-dev/?action=show_msg&actionargs[]=5&actionargs[]=35>

Well, that's kind of my point. You seem to be hostile toward 5.3 in
all of the posts I've seen. That's fine. I understand. I was just
curious if someone was making an effort to put 5.3 on a beta version
sometime.


> Please, I'm absolutely sick of people begging for 5.3. I've said it
> enough: yes, we will move to 5.3 eventually, and it's also likely
> that one of the next betas will have 5.3 as the base system. But
> begging for it is not going to make it happen sooner, and only pisses
> me off, so please STOP!

Perhaps you should put this on the website somewhere then. This is the
first time I've seen anyone say that future plans DO include 5.3. That's
why I asked. I'm glad to hear it.


> Still, the only important advantage I can see right now is ath
> support. And again, I think hostap is a very inferior alternative to
> "real" APs that don't rely on a mostly unsupported feature and should
> only be used where it's absolutely necessary to do everything on one
> box. Besides, 5.3 isn't going to give us things like WPA either.

Hmmm... that's funny. I could have sworn I saw about 10 posts by Sam
stating that he had WPA support in a private tree and that he'd merge
it as soon as he could. I guess he never got around to it?


>> I've seen a few companies making T1 CSU/DSU cards available for
>> FreeBSD too. This adds to the core router idea. They're not likely
>> to work under 4.x.
> 
> I assume you're talking about Sangoma cards. They do work under 4.x,
> but it involves just a little more than compiling a driver into the
> kernel (same with 5.x).

Yeah, I was talking about Sangoma cards, and I meant to remove that
part from my post, but I forgot. I checked the Sangoma FreeBSD FTP
site right after I wrote that, and it looks like their drivers are
ONLY for 4.x right now. I've sent them an email asking if 5.x drivers
are planned. We'll see.

BTW, what *is* involved in compiling the Sangoma drivers if not just
a kernel module? This is why I wrote a separate post to this list
about interface detection methods. How hard would it be to add support
for these cards to m0n0wall?

(No, I'm not implying that *you* should do so. I'm just curious. I
may want to do this myself some day.)


>> So are the primary developer(s) thinking about 5.3 yet? How
>> difficult would it be to move to 5.x, or better yet, support both
>> kernels with the same base system?
> 
> You can't just use the kernel but not the base system. Even with 4.x
> compatibility installed, some tools (like ifconfig) would break.

Ah. I keep forgetting that FreeBSD is so much more integrated into the
base system than Linux. I'm actually much more fond of Linux these
days anyway. I started out on FreeBSD two years ago, but I've started
phasing it out on our servers as Gentoo seems to be superior on almost
all fronts. (stability, hardware support, software support, etc) I
became incredibly disenchanted with FreeBSD right around 5.2.1-RELEASE.

What are your thoughts on the FreeBSD 5.3 kernel vs. the Linux 2.6
kernel for firewalling/networking?

-- 
Jesse Guardiani, Systems Administrator
WingNET Internet Services,
P.O. Box 2605 // Cleveland, TN 37320-2605
423-559-LINK (v)  423-559-5145 (f)
http://www.wingnet.net