[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Lee Sharp" <leesharp at hal dash pc dot org>
 To:  "monowall" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Enterprise m0n0wall?
 Date:  Fri, 25 Nov 2005 19:16:27 -0600
From: "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
On 11/25/05, Jonathan De Graeve <Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be> wrote:

>> I suggested this in the survey but it seems not all people seem to know
>> what I've meant or just said NO.

> I don't think people understood just what that meant.  Personally I
> agree that this is a good idea.  We're limited in what we can
> accomplish because of the requirement of supporting embedded hardware
> very well.  We could scale up to bigger installs, and features not
> currently possible, if we went this way.

But isn't that where pfsence is supposed to be?  There are already several 
custom options, like SMP support, or 50 pptp connections.  Beyond that, 
shouldn't we be looking at a different platform perspective?  I think the 
only reason people are trying to push m0n0wall into the pfsence space is 
because m0n0wall is so stable and mature.  We don't want to loose that. 
Instead we should help pfsence mature to the stability of m0n0wall.