Tim Vaughan wrote:
>> My understanding of the whole thing is, that a) m0n0wall is a
>> completely different approach to the whole firewall thing than
>> pfSense: m0n0wall is meant for lean&mean systems, where pfSense wants
>> to be a full featured product. So, each of both has it's right to
>> exist. b) is, that having m0n0wall running with FreeBSD 6.1 brings
>> the advantage of much more hardware support, which alone is worth
>> the work in my eyes.
> If this is the case, isn't the quickest way of getting
> m0n0wall on FreeBSD 6.1 just to cut out everything that
> pfSense has added until it has feature parity with current m0n0wall?
And by the way, is pfSense really a "completely different approach", compared to m0n0wall? I had a
look at the configuration screen, and it's just like m0nowall, with some more features, something
you would expect from the next version of m0n0wall by the way!
In the inside, yes, pfSense runs Altq and Pf, the firewall package FreeBSD 6.0 has just inherited
from OpenBSD, but really, with such a great user interface, we don't care, really.
Regarding performance, pfSense is maybe not as quick as m0n0wall, but trust be, so would be a port
of m0n0wall on FreeBSD 6.0. FreeBSD 4.0 is still the fastest version.
So, tell me: why on earth don't you want to jump into the pfSense development? Manuel, a few months
ago, was talking about the future of m0n0wall, and proposing some sort of "complete" rewrite...
Isn't that what pfSense is supposed to (or could) be? Chris Buechler is leading the pfSense
development, so I think all the elements are here!