>>But you're the one that proposed using VIA boards and second-source  
>>ethernet cards and wanted to make the centerpiece of the discussion  
>>"price".

No, that was Lee talking about VIA board, I only concerned about price

>>I presume that the members of the list want to discuss the  
>>development of m0n0wall, and do NOT wish the discussion to devolve  
>>into a "general solutions for service providers list"
 
Well I say there is a big cance to end up with Intel CPU that doesn't not
support X86, in that case even if we can get the board for $20, some one
would have to put all mono files on another version of BSD, so that would be
a developers part too. And, and if there will be no one willing to do that
the search for better pricing will do no good as community wont get the
benefit if they can not install mono on it.



-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim at netgate dot com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 9:31 PM
To: Alex M
Cc: 'Mono Dev List'
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for hardware project


On Mar 6, 2007, at 4:12 PM, Alex M wrote:

>
>>> linksys NSLU2  $90 (http://www.electronicsoutfitter.com/store/92992/
>>> nslu2.html or amazon)
>>> or D-Link DSM-G600  ($134 on Amazon)
>
> You have to kill me to force me to use Dlink in industrial  
> settings. From my
> experience consumer electronics from dlink usually dies within 1-3  
> years in
> industrial setups. Out 100 devices we bought from dlink we have 7  
> lefts that
> still kind of working. + Adding external USB network card and an  
> not having
> ability to add good radio.... looks like broken DIY project.

Well, one of the things I showed was the Linksys NSLU2, and both the  
D-link and Freecom boxes come with miniPCI-based radios
that will work (out of the box) with FreeBSD 6.2.

But you're the one that proposed using VIA boards and second-source  
ethernet cards and wanted to make the centerpiece of the discussion  
"price".

> As to Freecom, I like that toy, but commercially wise I have no  
> idea what is
> the point to use it? Its expansive, and it works fine (I hope) without
> monowall. It could be used for freeNAS but it alredy has its  
> features so ...

This is a m0n0wall list.  In fact, now that you've cut-down the  
recipients, its the m0n0wall developers list.

I presume that the members of the list want to discuss the  
development of m0n0wall, and do NOT wish the discussion to devolve  
into a "general solutions for service providers list".

Given this, anything I mention here will include the angle that it  
will (or could) run m0n0wall (or perhaps pfSense or FreeNAS) or why  
it can't (and thus isn't a subject for the list.)

Jim