Mitch (WebCob) wrote:
>>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
> Yea Gods!
> You are killing the purists! Hear them scream!?!??!
Yeah! Die, die... Ye puritan bastards ;)
Seriously though: As have so often been pointed out: What is their
problem, when this feature would a) be disabable (is that a word?) and
b) not entail adding anything at all to the image?
> 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...
Well, to answer these issues together:
- You would only need to write to the CF when uploading stuff, which
would typically be a rare occurance (actually much more rare than,
say, changing some setting in the webGUI!)
- The idea was to let m0n0wall move the stuff to RAM during boot, just
like I understand it is done with the php for the GUI and (I assume)
the HTML for the captive portal. This way there would be NO read (or
write) from (to) the CF at runtime.
> 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?
If I had the time and the ability I might just do that, but then
again, I was mainly wondering about the percieved problem with this,
rather than presenting an urgent need on my part.