[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  DevAuto <devauto at gmail dot com>
 To:  Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Status report and outlook
 Date:  Mon, 2 May 2005 14:24:25 -0400

First and foremost, thank you for all of your time and hard work in
developing m0n0wall. Without your vision, time and efforts, m0n0wall
would not exist for us to complain about :) I think m0n0wall rivals
most enterprise class firewalls today, and costs a whole lot less.

I believe we can all understand and appreciate the amount of time
spent that keeps you away from m0n0wall development these days. My own
opinion is this, m0n0wall is your baby, and when you feel like you
have time to work on it, then it is your decision and yours alone to
do so.

I personally don't really care which OS the m0n0wall is based on, but
from my experiences to date (since the .24 or .27 release IIRC) the
m0n0wall has been a superior firewall all around until the move to the
FreeBSD 5.3 code base. Since the code base move there have been more
complaints about performance issues, non-working features and hardware
problems than I can remember. That said, this will more than likely
put on hold any hope I was holding out for timed rules :)

Seriously though, I am kind of sorry that we are going to lose the
Atheros support, as I was developing a new architecture to include it
and do away with yet another box taking up space (admittedly very
little space, but space nonetheless). In the end however, I have not
yet implemented it so I am not really losing anything at this point
(In all actuality, I am still running off of 1.2 beta 3 on my networks

It will be interesting to see what opinions you get when you start the
OS discussion for the future of m0n0wall. People seem to have lots of
opinions on the subject of what is better in terms of OSs. It should
be a fun discussion :)

Again, thank you for all you have provided to the community, I for one
really appreciate it.

-- DevAuto

Failure is not an option ... it comes bundled with your Micro$oft solution!

On 4/30/05, Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net> wrote:
> Hi,
> first of all, let me say I'm sorry for being a bit unresponsive
> lately, and also for the fact that there hasn't been an updated
> m0n0wall image for over a month now. My personal situation has
> changed, and I can't devote evening after evening and weekend after
> weekend to m0n0wall development anymore. One of the consequences of
> studying effectively 80% while working 50% plus ~25% sidelines. You
> do the math. ;)
> Now, here's what's going on with m0n0wall now: as I've already
> announced, the next beta release will be based on FreeBSD 4.11. Due
> to the rather unsatisfying experience with FreeBSD 5.3, it has been
> decided to postpone further experimentation with 5.x until a later
> date when it has hopefully become more mature. It is said that 5.4,
> which is due very soon, should improve network performance, but
> that'll have to be proven first.
> I think that the best way to continue is to work towards a 1.2
> release based on FreeBSD 4.11 first. Sure, we won't have Atheros
> support, but I'm not sure that those who wanted it are entirely happy
> with it now. I still believe that "real" access points connected to
> an Ethernet interface on m0n0wall provide a better solution than
> kludgy hostap stuff for most people, so wireless isn't a top priority
> (since we can't do much more than simply taking what FreeBSD has to
> offer anyway).
> Then when 1.2 is out, we can try to find an answer for some basic
> questions, like whether FreeBSD should continue to be the operating
> system of choice for m0n0wall, or if not, what else could be used.
> Currently I'm working on the next m0n0wall beta release (1.2b8),
> based on FreeBSD 4.11. I've decided that while I'm at it, I might as
> well document the whole procedure of making a m0n0wall image from
> scratch (i.e. a clean, stock FreeBSD installation) with all its
> little important details. The primary intention is not that people
> will use the documentation to actually build their own images from
> scratch, but to document and preserve all the details so that people
> who would like to make changes to an existing image can see how
> m0n0wall and all of its parts are built. It's obviously going to take
> me longer like that, but I think it's important and should have been
> done before.
> To give you an idea of what it's going to look like, I've put up a
> very early version at <http://m0n0.ch/temp/m0n0wall-image-guide.html>.
> What's more - thanks to Fred Wright, the ipfilter bugs (window
> scaling, ICMP checksum adjustments) have again been fixed, and the
> whole kernel building procedure has become cleaner, with more options
> being set at the kernel configuration level. There are still some
> other things left to be fixed for 1.2b8 though - especially the
> captive portal with RADIUS, as it's in a rather buggy state now
> (1.2b7).
> Thank you for your patience!
> - Manuel