Hello Roberto,
well there's some progress in providing a XHTML and CSS compliant web
GUI (at least in CVS HEAD).
On the other hand cleaning up all the various PHP files to make
them XHTML/CSS compliant is a somehow time intensive and pesky effort.
So maybe sponsoring some of the devs would
So maybe sponsoring some of the devs would speed up the process :)
WAI is another story. For example I would like to know
whether the Ajax technology hinders the implementation of the
WAI principles...
Given pfsense's target market being realistic and politically incorrect,
the true
On 7/3/06, Greg Hennessy [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Given pfsense's target market being realistic and politically incorrect,
the true 'need' for double A WAI conformance would be rather low on any
priority list.
Ok, I was supposing that.
Not saying that they don't exist, but as with seriously
Roberto Gordo Saez schrieb:
Anyway, knowing that XHTML and CSS are planned in CVS HEAD is good
news for me. I'm happy with this.
It's not planned its has been there from the beginnings. It's just
that for example img / tags etc. are not closed as required by
the XHTML spec.
So donating
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to move back to default m0n0wall design and artwork.
It is much superior in look and usability, imo. I would go so
far to file this as a bug.
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
have the ugly old
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I suggest to move back to default m0n0wall design and artwork.
System - Theme - pfSense
It is much superior in look and usability, imo. I would go so
far to file this as a bug.
Get real. Thats the silliest thing I have heard all week.
On 6/21/06, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
have the ugly old look back.
It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a
slap in the face to Holger, one of the people that have helped this
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
No trolling intended. I do really consider the current pfsense
artwork a major regression on m0n0wall look and feel.
have the ugly old look back.
No, the
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Bugs are not classified by clown noses. Bugs are classified by what
users think are bugs. I can live with the current optics, but rest
assured: if you think the current theme is superior, by objective
criteria it's not (how about a poll?). Again,
Am 21.06.2006 um 21:18 schrieb Scott Ullrich:
On 6/21/06, Bill Marquette [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and
you'll
have the ugly old look back.
It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a
slap in the face to
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 03:18:45PM -0400, Scott Ullrich wrote:
It is indeed fnlamatory and I would go as far to say it is rude and a
No flamage intended. I was just speaking my honest, frank opinion.
slap in the face to Holger, one of the people that have helped this
project more than anyone
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
If you think I'm ever going to submit any ticket or recommend
pfsense to anybody (I admit of having been guilty of this in the past) you're
out of your fucking mind.
Do us all a favor and just go away.
Thanks.
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 09:32:05PM +0200, Rainer Duffner wrote:
I wouldn't go so far - this is really a question of taste. It's his
opinion.
Actually, usability is an objective criterion, not just taste.
OTOH, I can't imagine making the above (=thread-opening) statement
myself - but I
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sorry, my FLOSS universe works different from yours. If I was a *BSD person
and had the time I wouldn't have even brought it up.
And with this, I'm out of this thread. (What *is* it with *BSD people?)
More inflamatory comments. You really are
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
And with this, I'm out of this thread. (What *is* it with *BSD
people?)
Simple - They don't take shit from anyone.
Eugen - feel free to just use m0n0wall... m0n0wall is great at what m0n0wall
does. And m0n0wall users get the default m0n0wall
On 6/21/06, Eugen Leitl [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Wed, Jun 21, 2006 at 02:09:41PM -0500, Bill Marquette wrote:
That's kind of inflamatory, but change the theme to pfsense and you'll
No trolling intended. I do really consider the current pfsense
artwork a major regression on m0n0wall look
Mr. Leitl,
I don't quite understand your problem here.
You claim that the m0n0 interface has better usability, and is superior in
look, however, you do not support these claims with any useful examples that
would allow the pfSense team to improve their interface.
pfSense is not m0n0; it has more
I'm sure I will be criticized for being old fashioned or something but
I was under the impression that we could have discussions on this list
without being so strong with our language. I realize that it is probably
prevalent in all our lives but I don't see where the need presents
itself to
Hi All,
PFSense TEAM
I am more than happy with the GUI that you use, after configuring some Cisco
routers, a GUI is a luxury, no matter what it looked like (though I am
satisfied with the colour scheme, its PFSense nothing else). The point of
PFSense has been left out a bit, it’s a Firewall.
The point of
PFSense has been left out a bit, it’s a Firewall. Once it's configured, it
might only be viewed for about 10 minutes a week perhaps, or even only once
a month. It's not like the colour scheme is a high priority.
EXACTLY! I'm sure there are some who use it much more but for most of
20 matches
Mail list logo
