[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Jeff Buehler <jeff at buehlertech dot com>
 To:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] monowall 1.3 beta version download??
 Date:  Wed, 01 Mar 2006 19:19:02 -0800
Frederick Page wrote:
> Hallo Dinesh,
>
> Dinesh Nair schrieb am 01. March 2006:
>
>   
>> 1.3 is a branch i started in an effort to port m0n0wall over to
>> freebsd 6.x
>>     
>
> 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?
>   
You answer this yourself later when you talk about embedded systems.  
The goal is for a small footprint - I like running off a usb flash 
drive.  I don't want a failure prone hard drive in my firewall/NAT/vpn 
device.  Last time I checked (a while ago) this wasn't a reality with 
PFSense.
> 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)?
>   
I like FreeBSD better than OpenBSD myself.  it is more compatible, and 
more mature.  Your arguments are reasonable, but I generally have more 
problems getting OpenBSD to run.
> 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?
>   
I believe that Dragonfly is under consideration.  However, what is wrong 
with FreeBSD 6?  It is an excellent OS.  The network layer is a little 
slow for this sort of tiny app, but switching to other OS's requiresd 
major changes, and I like the FreeBSD path in general.  Looking to the 
future, I think it is a good bet.
> <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).
>   
As far as I know, you can't run PFSense in the small footprint that you 
can M0n0wall, including 1.3.  Perhaps I am wrong on this, though, as I 
haven't messed with PFsense for 5-6 months.

Jeff