[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Chris Buechler <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Re: UPnP as a possible future option?
 Date:  Wed, 30 Nov 2005 15:55:46 -0500
On 11/30/05, Giobbi, Ryan <rgiobbi at agoc dot com> wrote:
>
> I saw the above challenge in the list archives and found two real
> firewall configuration tools (both use IPTables on the backend) that
> support UPnP.
>

Neither of which are real firewall packages, they're configuration
interfaces for iptables.  By "real firewall package", I meant a
respectable commercial offering.


> It's kind of sad when most $50 cheap-o home routers support UPnP, but it
> isn't even offered as an *option* in m0n0, which is supposed to be a
> superior solution.

My $10,000 Cisco PIX doesn't, and you don't hear me complaining.
Wait, that must mean the $50 Linksys is superior!!  *gasp*  </sarcasm>


In all seriousness, let me explain something.  Open source works when
people contribute what they want to see in a project.  It *DOES NOT*
work when people do nothing but bitch, moan and complain about what
they want and don't do anything about it.  Want uPNP?  Make an image
with support that works, and submit the code to Manuel and/or the dev
list. Obviously from past threads, those of us that contribute
couldn't give a shit less if uPNP is supported or not.  The other
alternative is to offer up $X for whoever can implement uPNP.  If X is
sufficiently large, someone will do it.  This isn't a whining
competition with the winner getting whatever feature they want.

If it doesn't make it into the base system, I would gladly host the
uPNP-enabled images on my site, and link to them from the
documentation, so the effort wouldn't be for naught.

sorry, tired as hell of this and similar crap that people want to moan
about but do nothing to resolve.

-Chris