On 03.04.2004 16:28 -0700, Chad R. Larson wrote:
>> m0n0wall is a firewall, not an access point or a bridge. And IMHO,
>> hostap isn't reliable, featureful and fast enough to be a
>> complete replacement for a real commercial AP.
> The tone of this came off a bit testy. Not that I disagree with
Yes, I don't like to pretend.
> you about any of it, and I probably would have jumped in a lot
> sooner if I were you. It's one thing for folks to want to fork or
> modify on their own, it's another for those not skilled enough to
> do so to push for it to be part of the formal project.
That's it! Since m0n0wall is one of very few comparable projects,
it's clear that people would like it to do all kinds of things, for
lack of (free) alternatives. Still, I don't want it to be a
m0n0router, m0n0bridge, m0n0AP, m0n0server or whatever at the same
> Maybe cranking up a forked project space on SourceForge would
> satisfy some of those needs. That and the creation of a m0n0wall
> user's group?
Why would this be a prerequisite for anyone to start doing some
development, and why should I of all people do that? People who
really want to develop and contribute good code to m0n0wall can do
so. We even have the m0n0wall-dev mailing list for that purpose. But
making promises and beating about the bush is easier than taking
> It'd make me nuts to have something fairly cool I built for myself
> and then decided to share to become a second, uncompensated job.
Yes, that's why I have the nerve not to implement everything people
are asking for. There's no need to say yes to everything.