Last update:
01/15/2014
Current version:
1.8.1

Survey results

Here are the results of the second m0n0wall survey, conducted between 10/18/2005 and 10/25/2005. 1365 surveys have been submitted. Note that the total for each question may not be 100% because all questions were optional, some questions allowed multiple answers and due to rounding (the percentages given are relative to the number of surveys processed). Answers with less than 1% are not shown. The results will be used to determine which direction m0n0wall development should take in the future.
Thanks to everyone who participated!

Results of the first survey (Dec 2004)


Countries from which surveys were submitted
USA 34%
Germany 12%
Canada 6%
Sweden 5%
United Kingdom 4%
Netherlands 4%
Switzerland 4%
Denmark 3%
France 3%
Italy 3%
Australia 2%
Poland 2%
 
and 50 others: (< 2% each):
Norway, Austria, Spain, Brazil, Russia, New Zealand, Belgium, Argentina, Czech Republic, Romania, Finland, Portugal, Slovakia, Taiwan, China, Slovenia, Hong Kong, Ireland, Malaysia, Yugoslavia, Thailand, Philippines, Turkey, Japan, Mexico, Estonia, South Africa, Croatia, Mongolia, Greece, Hungary, Colombia, Peru, Israel, India, Iran, Luxembourg, Pakistan, Panama, Latvia, Lithuania, Virgin Islands, Saudi Arabia, Costa Rica, Chile, Trinidad and Tobago, Indonesia, Bulgaria, Liechtenstein, New Caledonia
Questions about the way you use m0n0wall
How many m0n0wall boxes do you use at present?
answers: 99%
1 48%
2 21%
3 10%
4-10 16%
11-50 4%
Which of the following features do you use?
answers: 94%
Traffic shaping 67%
IPSec VPN tunnels 41%
PPTP VPN server 40%
Bridging 30%
Captive portal 29%
Filtering bridge 28%
OpenVPN tunnels 19%
Delay/PLR options of traffic shaper 14%
How many users depend on your m0n0wall-based firewall(s)?
answers: 99%
1 2%
2-9 43%
10-29 22%
30-99 15%
100-249 9%
250-499 3%
500+ 5%
What's your (average) WAN downstream speed?
answers: 93%
up to 128 kbps 1%
up to 256 kbps 4%
up to 512 kbps 8%
up to 1 Mbps 13%
up to 2 Mbps 25%
up to 4 Mbps 17%
up to 8 Mbps 14%
> 8 Mbps 9%
What's your (average) WAN upstream speed?
answers: 93%
up to 16 kbps 1%
up to 64 kbps 4%
up to 128 kbps 8%
up to 256 kbps 13%
up to 512 kbps 24%
up to 1 Mbps 21%
up to 2 Mbps 10%
up to 4 Mbps 4%
up to 8 Mbps 2%
> 8 Mbps 5%
Questions about the hardware that you run m0n0wall on
Which platform(s) do you run m0n0wall on?
answers: 99%
PC hard drive, CF, USB stick, ... 53%
PC CD-ROM 32%
WRAP 19%
Soekris net48xx 16%
Soekris net45xx 12%
other 3%
How much RAM do your boxes have?
answers: 96%
up to 32 MB 2%
up to 64 MB 25%
up to 128 MB 42%
up to 256 MB 18%
up to 512 MB 7%
up to 1 GB 2%
> 1 GB 2%
How fast is the CPU of your boxes?
answers: 94%
up to 133 MHz 9%
up to 266 MHz 33%
up to 500 MHz 27%
up to 700 MHz 6%
up to 1 GHz 10%
up to 1.5 GHz 2%
up to 2 GHz 3%
> 2 GHz 4%
How many Ethernet interfaces do you use on each box?
answers: 98%
1 1%
2 34%
3 50%
4 8%
5+ 4%
What speed(s) do you use on your Ethernet interfaces?
answers: 99%
10 Mbps 17%
100 Mbps 95%
1000 Mbps 10%
How many wireless LAN interfaces do you use on each box?
answers: 97%
0 70%
1 23%
2 3%
3+ 1%
What kind of storage media do you use or plan to use for m0n0wall?
answers: 98%
Compact Flash 60%
Hard disk 19%
CD-ROM 13%
USB Flash 4%
Disk-On-Chip 2%
How big are your storage media?
answers: 93%
up to 8 MB 4%
up to 16 MB 6%
up to 32 MB 10%
up to 64 MB 13%
up to 128 MB 17%
up to 256 MB 11%
up to 512 MB 5%
> 512 MB 26%
Questions about what you think the future of m0n0wall should be
Which operating system/version would you like m0n0wall to use in the future?
answers: 85%
FreeBSD 6.0 49%
OpenBSD 18%
Linux 13%
NetBSD 3%
DragonFly BSD 1%
other 1%
If you don't currently use wireless on m0n0wall, would you use it if it included improved hardware and software support? (802.11a/b/g, WPA, etc.)
answers: 93%
Yes 72%
No 21%
How important are wireless networking capabilities in m0n0wall to you?
answers: 99%
1 (not important) 20%
2 15%
3 25%
4 17%
5 (very important) 21%
Would you like different images with different feature sets (like e.g. Cisco IOS)? (base, plus, advanced, enterprise, advanced enterprise...)
answers: 97%
Yes 48%
No 49%
Would you use a website that allows you to generate custom m0n0wall images to your specifications on-the-fly?
answers: 99%
Yes 77%
No 21%
Choose the 3 most important features (for the m0n0wall project) from the following list:
answers: 97%
Enterprise-class IPsec support (dynamic IP, NAT-T, DPD, XAUTH, etc.) 53%
Supporting the widest array of wired network cards 42%
>= 10 Mbps firewall throughput on current fanless systems (WRAP, Soekris) 37%
Supporting the widest array of wireless cards 34%
OpenVPN 34%
Supporting the widest array of system architectures 25%
Supporting the newest released hardware 17%
>= 2 Mbps 3DES throughput on current fanless systems (WRAP, Soekris) 16%
Verified support for encryption accelerators 15%
Choose whether or not you think these statements are true:
answers: 96% (bars reflect 'true' answers)
Protection against brute-force login attacks is a critical feature 83%
User login auditing is a critical feature 62%
OpenBSD is significantly more secure than FreeBSD and NetBSD 33%
Questions about m0n0wall development
How do you feel about a non-PHP core?
answers: 96%
strongly disapprove 7%
disapprove 12%
indifferent 63%
approve 9%
strongly approve 5%
Would implementing AJAX in the webGUI be a good idea?
answers: 90%
strongly disapprove 5%
disapprove 7%
indifferent 46%
approve 23%
strongly approve 9%
Should AJAX be required to use the webGUI?
answers: 87%
Yes 17%
No 70%
Do you think that it would be good for the project if we had a maintainer for each subsystem and one lead maintainer for all the developer groups – in other words a tree based system?
answers: 88%
Yes 71%
No 17%
Have you contributed code in the past?
answers: 96%
Yes 4%
No 92%
If you answered yes to the previous question – was your code included in the distribution?
answers: 100% (of those who answered the previous question with yes)
Yes 55%
No 45%
Would you contribute code if the base operating system was:
answers: 34%
Linux 21%
FreeBSD 19%
OpenBSD 12%
NetBSD 7%
DragonFly BSD 5%
Would you contribute code if the user interface was programmed in:
answers: 42%
PHP 34%
Perl 14%
Java 9%
Python 8%
Ruby on Rails 4%
Would you contribute code if the core was programmed in:
answers: 39%
PHP 28%
C 15%
Perl 13%
C++ 13%
Java 9%
Python 7%
How would you rate your programming knowledge and experience?
answers: 89%
novice programmer 35%
intermediate 28%
professional 23%
programming guru 3%
Choose whether or not you think these statements are true:
answers: 87% (bars reflect 'true' answers)
m0n0wall should continue to use PHP for the webGUI 83%
Dummynet is fine and doesn't need replacing 58%
m0n0wall should be open to choosing a language other than PHP for its backend 55%
m0n0wall should be reworked with a minimum of change, to leverage the existing code base 54%
ALTQ must be present in the next version 49%
m0n0wall should be redesigned from scratch, using lessons learned from m0n0wall 1.x to transcend its limitations 41%
© 2003-2014 by Manuel Kasper <mk@neon1.net>. All rights reserved.