[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Frederick Page <fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] OS platform (was: Hardware Failover?)
 Date:  Wed, 1 Feb 2006 17:49:44 +0100
Hallo Holger,

Holger Bauer schrieb am 30. January 2006:

>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

I have. I also agree with what is said there.

>>So m0n0wall will too move to FreeBSD 6.x?

I might have been unclear with this from my previous mail. I
understand the different goals for both projects and am not
questioning the fork itself, I am questioning the FreeBSD choice for
m0n0wall.

While FBSD might be the way to go for a project designed for modern
machines with potent CPUs and all kinds of hardware, the availability
of hardware drivers is not as important on an embedded system like
Wrap or Soekris.

The future is undoubtably pf (plus related software) and CARP. All of
which are developed on OpenBSD, the same OpenBSD that has it's primary
focus on security. The same OpenBSD that strives for the most perfect
and most bug-free code, all of which goals are obviously shared by our
esteemed Manuel himself.

There is a reason why the other BSD flavours drop their previous
methods of packet filtering/processing and porting OpenBSD's software
to their platforms. Would it not make more sense to use pf, etc. in
their "native habitat"?

I know about Theo deRaadt's reputation, I also know about cr.yp.to
(developer of tinyDNS), but their code should be what matters. I am
honestly surprised to see alpha versions of 1.3 m0n0wall with FreeBSD
kernel.

Best regards   Frederick