[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Jonathan De Graeve" <Jonathan dot De dot Graeve at imelda dot be>
 To:  "List Receiver" <listreceiver at mastermindpro dot com>, "Chris Buechler" <cbuechler at gmail dot com>
 Cc:  "Monowall Mailing list" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] monowall vs pfsense captive portal
 Date:  Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:14:27 +0200
The code is not completely 100% the same.

There is a small difference in changed server VARS because PFsense uses
a different webserver lighttpd instead of mini_httpd(m0n0wall)

J.

> -----Oorspronkelijk bericht-----
> Van: List Receiver [mailto:listreceiver at mastermindpro dot com]
> Verzonden: woensdag 18 oktober 2006 17:54
> Aan: Chris Buechler
> CC: Monowall Mailing list
> Onderwerp: RE: [m0n0wall] monowall vs pfsense captive portal
> 
> 
> 
> > -----Original Message-----
> > From: Chris Buechler [mailto:cbuechler at gmail dot com]
> > Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 8:52 AM
> > Cc: Monowall Mailing list
> > Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] monowall vs pfsense captive portal
> >
> > On 10/18/06, List Receiver <listreceiver at mastermindpro dot com> wrote:
> > >
> > > Yes, I've seen this behavior.  No one over on the pfSense dev list
> > > seems to acknowledge it, though...they say they just port
> > the CP code
> > > from m0n0.  I have no idea why it is this way.
> > >
> >
> > It's completely, totally, identically, 100% the same code.  I
> > don't use it on either, so I can't vouch for the speed or
> > lack thereof.
> >
> > -Chris
> >
> 
> Then perhaps the problem lies outside the CP code?
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> To unsubscribe, e-mail: m0n0wall dash unsubscribe at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> For additional commands, e-mail: m0n0wall dash help at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
>