[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Holger Bauer" <Holger dot Bauer at citec dash ag dot de>
 To:  "Frederick Page" <fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de>, <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  AW: [m0n0wall] Re: Hardware Failover?
 Date:  Mon, 30 Jan 2006 14:25:07 +0100
Just to stop this discussion before it has started please read the following ;-)
http://www.mail-archive.com/discussion at pfsense dot com/msg00983.html

There are reasons why m0n0wall is m0n0wall and pfSense is pfSense. Both are great for the one or the
other reason and they both can help and learn from each other though atm code is transferred more
unidirectional going from m0n0 to pfSense. Even with version 1.0 of pfSense (not out yet) there are
a lot of differences between m0n0 and pfSense and the splitting will continue and become even more
obvious for version 1.1. Project goals of both systems are different and thus they have to stay
different products.

Holger



> Von: Frederick Page [mailto:fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de]
> Gesendet: Montag, 30. Januar 2006 13:49
> An: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Betreff: Re: [m0n0wall] Re: Hardware Failover?
> 
> 
> Hallo Chris,
> 
> Chris Buechler schrieb am 30. January 2006:
> 
> >But that's just a consequence of having to abandon FreeBSD 4.x.  The
> >next version of m0n0wall will see the same drop off in performance in
> >network throughput.
> 
> So m0n0wall will too move to FreeBSD 6.x? I wonder about the
> differences to pfSense, would it not make more sense to combine both
> developments?
> 
> Best regards  Frederick
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 

____________
Virus checked by G DATA AntiVirusKit