Dinesh Nair schrieb am 01. March 2006:
>1.3 is a branch i started in an effort to port m0n0wall over to
So where is the difference between the m0n0wall 1.3 series and
pfSense, except that pfSense's development has progressed further and
pfSense is in a more usuable state?
As I understand Manuel's goals, m0n0wall is primarily designed for
embedded systems, pfSense for "real" PCs. As the majority of m0n0wall
users already uses "real" PCs, I expect most of them to switch to
pfSense anyway, as this is primarily designed for "real" PCs.
I already asked here, allow me to ask again: would it not make more
sense to at least evaluate OpenBSD? Run pf, CARP & co. in their native
habitat, instead of running knock-offs (ports)?
The OpenBSD goals seem pretty coherent with Manuel's goals (to me).
Good coding, high security and again: running originals, developed on
and for their native OS. Potentially less problems/bugs, possibly
higher network throughput than FreeBSD 6.x
What about the extremely fast and lean NetBSD? What about Dragonfly
(derived from good old FreeBSD 4.x)? Why push FBSD that hard?
Especially when m0n0wall is designed for embedded systems and FBSD 6.x
has roughly half the networking throughput as FBSD 4.x?
<provocative>Why should users wait for a pfSense imitation (m0n0wall
1.3), when pfSense (latest snapshot) is nicely usuable?
</provocative> Once users converted (pfSense understands almost 100%
of the m0n0 XML config), they are unlikely to return, as pfSense's XML
config is different from m0n0's (and incompatible).