> Well, no, actually! And even if I did have some kind of public
> webserver access, I think I'd prefer not to have to access the WAN
> just to show an image on my portal page.
>
> Fortunatly, I have no urgent need to use images on my portal page ;)
>
> But... IMHO, it should be left to the user to decide what should go
> where, especially since I get the impression that m0n0wall already has
> everything needed for this (not only the http server, but even the
> code for uploading files and for moving them to RAM at bootup etc.) I
> certainly don't see any reason for activly preventing such use of
> m0n0wall, even if you don't want to spend time making a nice webGUI
> page for it (which would be nice though!)
>
> Who knows, some people might like the idea of having m0n0wall serve a
> small web site on their LAN, or perhaps some kind of auto-configure
> script for setting up their clients TCP/IP or Proxy settings or stuff
> like that?
>

Yea Gods!

You are killing the purists! Hear them scream!?!??!

On one hand I understand the goal - hey let me upload some stuff -... but on
the other hand:

- Making the CF file system writable shortens the life of it (or so we keep
getting told).

- temporarily mounting as read write doesn't always revert to read only when
you want it too.

- creating a separate read write partition for user data makes the cd size
requirements larger

- allowing any kind of write creates security risks

- writing to a / file system could corrupt it during power fail etc
resulting in a boat anchor until you reflash

Just a FEW things against it...

But, maybe you could write an add in templating module, for those users
running the squid proxy and having a hard drive in their mono box?

m/