[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "John Voigt" <1geek at jvoigt dot com>
 To:  "'M0n0wall'" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Feature request which would make m0n0wall even better ;)
 Date:  Tue, 27 Jan 2004 12:21:04 -0500
----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Robert Staph" <rstaph at digitalimpreza dot com>
Sent: Tuesday, January 27, 2004 11:52 AM
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Feature request which would make m0n0wall even
better ;)

> Well said.  I really don't want to outfit my soekris box with a 256MB
> card (from 16MB) just because a few people "needed" a ton of services.

Herein lies the key to which update requests will get any attention.

1. They cannot be bloatware.  They have to fit in a reasonably small space
as not everyone is running on old PCs.  Many of us are using embedded
hardware with a small footprint.

2. They cannot write directly to the local machine.  Many systems are
running from compact flash cards which are destroyed by execessive write
cycles.  This means they also cannot make excessive changes (dynamically) to
the config as it's XML stored on the CF.

I think Manuel has done a damn fine job of including new features (both
those which belong only on a firewall box and some nice "extra" stuff) that
make monowall the best edge product I've seen in a long time.

Before you ask for a feature request think about those 2 points - will it
fit in a small size and does it need to write a lot of data.

Oh and while I have an e-mail open I'll thank Manuel again for the fine work
he's done.


John Voigt, President

Reston Wireless, LLC
High speed internet service
no smoke, no mirrors, no wires (tm)