Bill Marquette wrote: > I've got a better idea. After all you've said, why are you > choosing pfSense over m0n0? What have we done right that's > made you want to choose pfSense over m0n0? I assume we've > done _something_ right for you to choose an alpha project > over a released product.
Actually, I AM going with m0n0wall at one of my clients, because: (1) they're running a Pentium with 32MB (which I suppose only serves to justify the fork), and (2) because pfSense is still alpha. Once pfSense is stable, I'll probably switch them to pfSense because pfSense has a certificate manager for their VPN and CARP for failover that they requested. As for me at home, I'm currently choosing pfSense over m0n0wall for largely superficial reasons, like the certificate manager and better aliases. However, I'm also thinking long-term here. I recognize that m0n0wall will always be more limited than pfSense because of its more restrictive requirements. Hence, I expect pfSense will ultimately have more features that I anticipate my clients will need. I run it at home so I can muck up my own network before screwing up my clients'. I'd like to know that the product I plan on convincing my clients to use is going to be around in few years. That's why I posted initially. I wanted to know more about the fork. I wanted to know that it wasn't some half-baked spin-off that will never come to fruition, and possibly even killing off m0n0wall by splitting the community so thin that neither project has the support it needs to continue. In a nutshell, THAT was my concern, and, thanks to your responses, I know this is NOT the case. Again, thank you all for your replies. --Bennett
