On Fri, 2006-15-09 at 11:26 +0300, Kimmo Jaskari wrote:
> On 9/14/06, George Farris <farrisg at mala dot bc dot ca> wrote:
> > > The second statement is why you made the first. Actually, it IS that hard.
> > > m0n0wall runs totally in ram. It was designed that way because CF can not
> > > take continuous writes. Changing this would be substantially changing the
> > > structure of m0n0wall.
> > Thanks for that. It's too bad someone didn't say that before. I didn't
> > realize the design was that inflexible. I've taken a quick look at
> I don't have any work invested in m0n0wall, but even so I take a bit
> of exception to that statement. m0n0wall is designed to run on very
> limited hardware and do it well, and the run-only-from-ram design is a
> great feature of it, not something "inflexible".
Well the term inflexible doesn't imply in any way shape or form that
the design is bad. It simply means that the way it is designed prevents
it from flexing slightly outside it's design. Many people use Monowall
on systems that are not embedded.
No matter what you may feel, the design is from what I can tell quite
"static" and "not conducive" to changing out side it's design. I'm just
pointing out a fact. My apologizes that it upset you.
George Farris farrisg at mala dot bc dot ca
"Giving up Windows is like kicking a drug habit...."
"No, it's more like leaving the Titanic for an Ice Breaker."