[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Charles Goldsmith <wokka at justfamily dot org>
 To:  valnar at yahoo dot com
 Cc:  m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Future plans after 1.3?
 Date:  Fri, 4 Dec 2009 09:02:31 -0600
Forking it might work for this, but there is no reason to force people
to upgrade hardware to keep up with the latest bug fixes and patches.
I know newer hardware is faster, etc, I personally do not fall into
this category, my slowest mono setup is a p2-350 pc with 128 ram and a
hard drive.  Next up is a Soekris 5501.

However, anyone running the older Alix and Soekris do, and if you come
out with Monowall 1.4 or 2.x that requires 32meg of flash and 128 ram
would prevent a lot of people from upgrading.

If you go down this path, I suggest you fork the project, so that
patches, continued development can go forward with what we have.  I
know this would split development, cause more work, but that has to be
weighed for other features that not everyone wants.

My personal opinion, UPnP is nasty and not wanted in a true firewall.
I only open up ports for services that I want, and never want
something that can automatically open ports.  Again, thats just my
opinion.  If it is implemented, just make sure its user chooseable,
that it can be disabled.

Charles

On Fri, Dec 4, 2009 at 8:48 AM, Robert <valnar at yahoo dot com> wrote:
> Now that m0n0wall is at version 1.3, I looked back at what where it started
> and when it came out.  A lot has changed in six years.  Embedded processors
> are more powerful now and 16Mb CF cards are practically non-existent.  We
> all throw away the 32Mb cards that come with our cameras.  The original WRAP
> and net4801 boards are discontinued, the ALIX boards are now the platform of
> choice, and earlier this year AMD announced that it stopped development of
> the Geode processor.
>
> I think the original goals of m0n0wall were to make it as small as possible,
> run from RAM and work on embedded platforms.  But the definition of "small"
> has changed.  Upgrading the scope of m0n0wall to platforms with 128MB RAM
> and 32MB Flash would be a better target.  I still think it should focus as a
> firewall which can be run entirely from RAM, as to not cross paths with
> pfSense, Untangle or other firewalls which need more muscle and read-write
> access to hard drives for caching, like squid.  But that being said, there
> are a couple features which could be added without breaking that rule.
>
> For an entirely selfish reason, I'd like to see UPnP supported added.  I
> don't use m0n0wall today for this very reason.  I'm forced to use pfSense
> with all its bugs and inability to upgrade easily over the network.  Adding
> UPnP as a feature would allow me to return.  OpenVPN and load-balancing
> might also be possibilities.
>
> What other features would people like to see?
>
> -Robert
>
>