>
>  That's a good question! We could probably keep a partial "m0n0" in the
> project name, and being known as m0n0Cored isn't so bad. But the reason why
> were not m0n0wall is because this is a new design/architecture, and doesn't
> fall in line with the current m0n0wall. I've talked with Manuel, and he's
> thumbs up with the idea of furthering this project, and hopefully being able
> to replace m0n0wall one day. Therefore, this is not m0n0wall, but a venture
> into what could be.
>
> I'm okay with m0n0Core or m0n0Cored, but we need to differentiate ourselves
> from m0n0wall, as a m0n0wall derived project with intentions of being the
> "NEW" m0n0wall. Also, were deviating from the original FreeBSD OS, and
> looking at a multi-OS solution that is BSD and Linux based.
>
>   
I'm not entirely convinced that planning to develop an product which 
could sit on one of multiple OSes is a particularly good idea. I think 
it might make it difficult to track bugs and keep development flowing 
properly.

FreeBSD may not be the correct choice though, so I do think it's worth 
while looking at all of the options to see if it's the right time to 
switch to another OS. And I definitely think there's a great deal of 
merit in trying to replace m0n0wall. As great as m0n0 is, we could do 
with a somewhat more flexible architecture, without turning in to the 
mess that I think pfsense is.

Oh, and call it p0lywall, go on, you know you want to... :P

adam.