[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Adam Nellemann <adam at nellemann dot nu>
 Cc:  'M0n0wall' <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Where is the SSID???
 Date:  Thu, 08 Apr 2004 07:17:21 +0200
Hi,

I'll throw in a few cents of my own here...

I agree with the general notion about keeping it simple (don't get the 
stupid part though?)

That being said, I would personally prefer that m0n0wall stays a 
single project, with Manuel staying in charge of the "core" version. 
Instead I'd like to see any additional functionality being implemented 
as plugins (even if this is an unsupported feature). This way you can 
be sure that the core functionality remains stable and within the 
original scope of m0n0wall as a stable, monolithic SOHO firewall. The 
plugins would then allow you to have a choice of what extra 
functionality you'd want to add, if any. Also, you could do so on a 
per plugin basis, without getting a lot of other stuff you might not 
need or want.

Anyway, if we are still discussing this in the light of wireless 
parameters, I should think these being such an integral part of 
m0n0wall that it would be wrong to argue that these shouldn't be 
exposed in the GUI. (I'm sensing, however, that Ricks post wasn't as 
much related to the whole wireless/SSID issue, as to the more general 
discussion about how feature rich m0n0wall should be/become.)

Personally, I'd like to see all the settings supported by the wireless 
driver exposed in the GUI, especially SSID broadcast disable, no 
matter how many people feel this is a "bogus" setting. While I agree 
that additional measures should be taken to secure a WLAN, I can't see 
any reason to prevent the use of this setting (or any other setting 
for that matter), if for nothing else, then to keep nearby wireless 
clients from getting their AP list cluttered with all the APs in the 
neighbourhood.

I hasten to say that the above is NOT meant as a feature suggestion 
for Manuel. I fully understand that while there is other important 
things to do, this is "bogus" (which I read as: "unimportant") enough 
to not warrent the time.


Regards,

Adam.


Rick Ruggiero wrote:

> Hi Guys,
> 
> I would like to throw my 2 cents in on this discussion as well.  I have
> been designing, developing and project managing UNIX software projects
> for over 20 years and one thing which I learned very early in my career
> was the KISS principle (Keep It Simple, Stupid).
> 
> M0n0wall is a great concept and from what I can see does a great
> specific job.  One of the biggest issues I have had with software
> engineers in general is that we all like to build the "all singing, all
> dancing" solution all the time and often lose focus of the original
> objective we wanted to achieve.
> 
> Keep m0n0wall small, fast and reliable.  This will build more success
> for the product; if you want to build a replacement for something like
> e-smith; use m0n0wall as a base and take the additional functionality to
> a new project which plugs-in on top of m0n0wall.
> 
> This way we cause no harm to m0n0wall and people who decide to add the
> additional plug-ins do so in a deliberate fashion. I would love to have
> additional features added to m0n0wall, but integrating them will effect
> everyone (whether they want them or not).
> 
> Take this discussion, and lead it to a new project on sourceforge, I
> will definitely volunteer my time and effort to the project(s).
> 
> Sorry for being so long winded.
> 
> Rick Ruggiero
> 
> Scorpion Holding Co. Ltd.
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Manuel Kasper [mailto:mk at neon1 dot net] 
> Sent: Sunday, 4 April 2004 4:03 PM
> To: Chad R. Larson
> Cc: m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch
> Subject: Re: [m0n0wall] Where is the SSID???
> 
> 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
> time.
> 
> 
>>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
> action...
> 
> 
>>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.
> 
> - Manuel
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
> 
> 
> 
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------
> 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
>