From: "Frederick Page" <fpage at thebetteros dot oche dot de>
> 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?
Embedded systems and CF drives.
> 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.
Not me, and I have over 20 systems in production. All are "generic-pc" and
most have CF memory. Most are also slow and 128 meg.
> 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)?
At some point you need to pick one and go. There are good arguments for all
of them. But I would rather move on than have them.
> <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).
I do not see it as an imitation, but a different approach with similar