[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 From:  "Donovan R. Palmer" <donovan at dmpnet dot org>
 To:  <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall vrs. pfSense
 Date:  Wed, 17 Jan 2007 11:03:18 -0000
I don't think a side by side comparison comparison exists. I am new to 
m0n0wall and it seems that PFSense is a bit more feature rich and bigger as 
a result. m0n0wall is more lean and is better suited to embedded 
installations.  The documentation to PFSense is not as developed as 
m0n0wall's either.

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "ATM Logic" <atmlogic at kmts dot ca>
To: <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
Sent: Wednesday, January 17, 2007 8:28 AM
Subject: [m0n0wall] m0n0wall vrs. pfSense

> For a basic Wireless "Captive Portal" just wondering is their any point to
> going with pfSence (never heard if it till it was mentioned on the list)
> vrs. m0n0wall?
> I only looked around at the site for a few mins.... anyone know (or have a
> site) what the side by side diff's are?
> Thanks, and sorry ... bit of a newbie, however... I was very happy to see
> the Captive Portal work.... now I am 'not' looking forward to trying to 
> get
> it to work with a little radius box I have.