[ previous ] [ next ] [ threads ]
 
 From:  Adam Nellemann <adam at nellemann dot nu>
 To:  Manuel Kasper <mk at neon1 dot net>, "m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch" <m0n0wall at lists dot m0n0 dot ch>
 Subject:  Re: [m0n0wall] Beta 1.1b10
 Date:  Sun, 30 May 2004 12:16:10 +0200
Hi Manuel,

>>- The disabled color of block rules look VERY similar to the
>>(enabled) color of reject rules. Perhaps making all the disabled
>>rules a bit more "transparent" (lighter) would help (and also help
>>distinguish enabled and disabled rules more easily).
> 
> 
> Huh? A case of badly calibrated display? I can very easily tell them
> from each other on my TFTs. Besides, the reject icons were
> contributed, not done by me (isn't it nice when you can put the blame
> on somebody else ;). But I might just make the text for display rules
> gray in a future release.

I'm on a CRT here, which might account for some difference in "color 
space" (also it's a bit old, but it's a quite good Nokia, and I've got 
no problems with colors otherwise, so..?)

Anyway, making the text grey as well would certainly ensure one can 
see what is disabled and what isn't, icons alike or not. That is, if 
the grey and black text doesn't look the same on my monitor as well ;)


>>- In the last couple of betas (don't remember when I first noticed
>>it?) there has been only two CPU load numbers on the
>>"Status/System" page, is this intentional?
> 
> 
> No, it's a mistake. And the users figure shouldn't show up anymore.

Ah yes, I seem to remember you having removed the users figure some 
time ago (that might even have been due to me wondering about its 
function, but I don't remember clearly? Dang, I'm getting old!)


>>- I've noticed that you use POST in (some of?) your form submits.
>>While I'm aware that there are some advantages to this, it would be
>>somewhat simpler when scripting changes to the m0n0wall
>>configuration if GET submits could be used instead. That is if
>>there aren't a good reason for your choice of POST?
> 
> 
> With GET it's just too easy to accidentally repost a form by using
> the back/forward buttons in the browser.

Ah, I see. Would it be very difficult to have m0n0wall (that would be 
mini_httpd I guess?) to accept GET's as well (again, for scripting 
purposes.)


>>- It is still quite cumbersome to move rules up and down as
>>typically you need to move several rules several positions, which
>>takes forever (in fact sometimes I actually find it quicker to
>>download the config.xml, cut'n'paste the rules and then upload it
>>again!) While not of great importance, it is something which most
>>users will be bothered by from time to time (to a greater or lesser
>>extent depending on their m0n0wall usage, of course).
> 
> 
> Maybe, sometime...

Yeah, I guess it would be a lot of work for such a (semi) 
non-essential feature. Perhaps on some rainy day...


As always, I'm very grateful for all the work you put into m0n0wall, 
even despite it having worked so well for so many versions. I find it 
very reassuring that my firewall software is continually under 
revision and of course I like getting to test new functionality once 
in a while as well ;)

Thanks!


Adam.