[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  "Alex M" <radiussupport at lrcommunications dot net>
 To:  "Monowall Support List" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  RE: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for hardware project
 Date:  Tue, 6 Mar 2007 23:01:31 -0500
I don not know we can run IPX on x86 OS, it sounds kind of contradictory,
but from another hand cpu structure support is only x number of commands
required, everything else stays the same.  So if there is no need to rebuild
mono, then it shouldn't be as big problem. 

Do you know the cost of Alvia boards for dual port and for quad port?



 

-----Original Message-----
From: Jim Thompson [mailto:jim at netgate dot com] 
Sent: Tuesday, March 06, 2007 10:44 PM
To: Alex M
Cc: Monowall Support List
Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] RE: [m0n0wall-dev] Re: [m0n0wall] Support for
hardware project


On Mar 6, 2007, at 5:05 PM, Alex M wrote:

>
>
>>> 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

K.

>>> 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.

Are you saying its a big 'chance' (risk) to use an Intel CPU that  
doesn't execute x86 instructions, or that its a big "change"
to do so?

Did you know that support for the Intel ixp42x CPUs (specifically the  
gateworks boards) has been MFCed to FreeBSD 6.2?
http://freshbsd.org/2007/02/26/23/13/10

The biggest problem now is getting the requisite packages to go  
through a cross-compiler (harder than it looks) or to build a native
"build" environment.   Currently I'm getting one of these to run  
FreeBSD 6.2:  http://www.intel.com/design/storage/sb.htm

Though the Freecom box could be interesting as well.

Running a native build environment 'fixes' the issue of getting the  
various packages to run through a cross compiler, modulo byte- 
ordering issues
possible for some things.

pfSense is being put on the Avilia boards.   I fully expect that  
m0n0wall will follow.   Since most of the Avila boards have a CF  
socket, and since the work has completed to allow the FreeBSD kernel  
to boot from the on-board (non-CF) flash, installing pfSense (or  
m0n0) will be no more difficult
than loading a CF with a pre-compiled image and using tftp to load  
the kernel in the on-board flash.

Eliminating the CF socket (with a custom m0n0wall image) and tftp-ing  
that into the on-board flash (assuming it can be made to fit in 16MB)  
would allow the use of freebsd/m0n0 on the single-socket Gateworks  
board.

Jim

---------------------------------------------------------------------
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