Bennett wrote:
This answers one of my biggest questions about the fork. I've been
fixated on the package system (though my previous mention of it was
brief), thinking it was a solution for both projects. I had envisioned
moving everything that isn't a core feature into an optional module.
Chris Buechler wrote:
Bennett wrote:
Perhaps I should troll the m0n0wall list... :)
go for it. You'd still get me replying to your messages, with the
same stuff mostly. :)
Chris won't be the only one, either. :-)
But it'll never change to be a full blown hard drive install, and
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off.
However, this fork of m0n0wall is a bit unnerving. Yes, I know you have
radically
Bennett wrote:
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off.
However, this fork of m0n0wall is a bit unnerving. Yes, I know
* Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-27 01:58:17 -0600]:
However, this fork of m0n0wall is a bit unnerving. Yes, I know you have
radically different goals, but you also have similar goals and will
face similar issues. This fork detracts from BOTH projects because
you've effectively cut the
and the utilizations are very different.
Just my two cents worth.
-Original Message-
From: Colin Smith [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Sunday, November 27, 2005 4:32 PM
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: Re: [pfSense-discussion] Unfork m0n0wall
* Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] [2005-11-27 01:58
On 11/27/05, Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off.
I think you just summarized the fork
On 11/27/05, Bennett [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Email address created just to troll us. I already see issues.
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking
Colin Smith wrote:
Also, it is my understanding that Scott and Chris originally forked because of
Manuel's (obvious) resistance to taking his project in an entirely new
direction. Few if any bridges were burned. It most certainly was not an 'ego
thing'.
I won't bother responding to
plainly said if you unforked pfSense and M0n0wall you would essentially
not have alot of what both offer because then they would not be reaching
such diverse goals, both projects are good, and have solidbasis to
exists, its like saying unfork BSD... theres a purpose for them to
exists, and other
First off, let me apologize if I was too offensive. I wasn't
trolling--that was my imagination playing devil's advocate, and meant to
be rhetorical. As I am beginning to understand the fork, these wild
ideas have no justification (well, maybe one or two still do...). :)
Chris Buechler wrote:
2005 08:58
To: discussion@pfsense.com
Subject: [pfSense-discussion] Unfork m0n0wall
I've been looking for an open source firewall. I found m0n0wall, IPCop,
and few others. I thought m0n0wall was great, but then I came across
pfSense, and it was even better, picking up where m0n0wall left off
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.
Espen Johansen wrote:
I think you need to read thru the code.
...
If you read thru the code you would know this by now.
Surely you're joking. Are you saying anyone who has questions about
m0n0wall or pfSense should just read the code instead asking questions
to the people who actually wrote
14 matches
Mail list logo
