Slashdot Mirror
Linux Router Project Dead
An anonymous reader submits: "The Linux Router Project is no more. This single-floppy distro was a great tool for building a number of simple super-low-cost network devices. The maintainer has a lot of bitter words about its demise, and it is sad to see it go."
2003-06-22
LRP == R.I.P. (1997-2002)
With great pain, I must now state:
The operating system that helped to create the embedded Linux marketplace, the Linux Router Project (LRP), is dead.
As of January of this year I have finally accepted the fact I will likely never be able to develop LRP into the operating system it could have been. A full 6 months later I'm forcing myself to update this page to reflect this. It is not an easy thing to give up on your life's work.
I am also now semi-retired as a computer engineer. Aside from my general disgust at the computing industry and what the Internet has become, scrambling around for scrapes of work and praying for the next good money project that eventually ends suddenly in a few months, just isn't keeping food on the table. I've looked quite a bit for some stable work, but plumbers make more hourly then Sys Admins in South Florida. Either I move to California (never!) or move on. I am now reserved to do the latter. With LRP remaining an unachievable goal I don't even feel much desire to work with computers anymore.
My many contributions to the computing community has reaped very little personal benefit for myself. As I now struggle to pay the bills I can not help but feel quite pissed off at the state of affairs, for myself and the other authors who contributed massive amounts of time and quality work, only to have it whored by companies not willing to give back dime one to the people that actually created what it is they sell. Acknowledgement and referral would have at least been acceptable. Few companies do even that.
Care to tell me what Embeddix (for one) is based off of? Ever offer me work Caldera? Even when I asked?
Well actually I'm glad they didn't as I would hate to think I could have benefited those scumbags any further...but I think you, the reader, gets the point I'm making.
Some companies did contribute directly to the project. However a few thousand dollars or a few computers does not let a programmer eat next month. As desperately as I have tried for the last 4 years I have been unable to get any type of sustainable funding for LRP development or steady work which would allow such. (It might have happened late in 2001, but after many 100 hour weeks of coding....that contract was terminated and so were any hopes of dedicating future time to LRP development.)
I actually have done more work on LRP 5.0 then anyone has seen. Yes LRP *5.0*. LRP 4.0 was brought to an alpha stage January 2001 and I was not happy with it. It was a gorgeous rehash of the same old Unix shit. Not acceptable to me. I began to explore some ideas I previously had but thought were not realistic to pursue. They instead turned out to be ideal.
This operating system had a good deal of specifications outlined for it and some preliminary proof-of-concept coding done. To this day I am only beginning to see very minor bits of what I had expected to have in production the summer of 2001. You see, unlike the current pile of Linux distributions which are based on ~20 year old obsolete mechanisms, I was working on something that was from scratch. How different would it have been?
* A new shell (no bash, no ash, no sh at all!)
* A new shell scripting language
* A new (universal) packaging scheme (would retrofit other OSes)
* A true application management system
* A new core process management system (No 'init' here...)
That's just a short list from memory, for the sake of making people ill with longing. (YES, YES, Burn with desire! Muhahaha!) Even the syntax for the scripting language was designed. The full architecture for the packaging system was laid out. Oh yeah, and the base of this OS would have all fit in ~8MB of space. The name of this operating system and it's specifications, shall still remain UNRELEASED.
Unfortunately it's not going to happen. Wish it could. I'd like to hope someone with 6 figure$ to burn wants this to happen, but I need to grow up and move o
Have you looked at Mikrotik ? Not exactly the same by imagination but that's what I like. Very robust.
Head to this link:
http://www.mikrotik.com/download.html
You can download a free trial.
Have fun.
http://www.linuxgazette.com/issue67/fevola.html
Live's to short - do another mile.
The way I have been getting by is working as a consultant for remote clients. I also did it for a couple years before I moved away from California. Now, it's more difficult than holding a regular job, and it's not secure, but it has many advantages, one of which is that you can live in a nice place - for example, Not In Silicon Valley.
I'm sorry to see the LRP die. I subscribed to the list around the time I moved to Maine, and I think they're a great bunch of people. But I don't believe that there's no way that one can make a living in programming anymore.
If I can do it from Maine, he can do it from Florida.
Since I left California, I haven't had any clients from anywhere near where I lived. They've been from Kansas, New Jersey, The Bahamas, California, and Ontario. Just last week I got inquiries from Germany and Taiwan.
If you want to know how I find clients, read Market Yourself - Tips for High-Tech Consultants, How to Promote Your Business on the Internet and You Can Help by Referring Clients.
It's certainly not easy, in fact it's downright crazy sometimes, but I have been working steadily throughout the economic downturn, I still own my house, and I eat more or less regularly.
And I live in a nice place.
Request your free CD of my piano music.
For those of you who are interested, the meat of the LRP project lives on in LEAF. I suggest anybody that feels sorry for David and his "take my toys and leave" speech should take a LONG look at the LEAF project and what it offers and the amount of people involved with it. You'll see the real reason for David packing up and going home.
Hats off to everybody involved in LEAF, keep up the good work.
Well, there's two points I want to make about this rant of his:
1. No open source project is ever truly dead. I don't think I have to explain why this is, but this is one of the best parts of free software.
2. The author of the project is completely justified in feeling bitter that he's having a hard time putting food on the table. However, this is not (and he does point this out) totally the fault of open source. Honestly, in today's post-dot-com market, do you ever think he could have gotten anywhere had he built this project from the ground up as a proprietary system? All by himself? With a few employees, maybe?
No, something's wrong here, and it ain't Linux. (Randroids beware, vicious attacks on the market coming...)
The fact of the matter is that the market is a horrible, horrible place for brilliantly useful ideas to thrive if they aren't (tadaaaaa!) marketable... If they can't turn enough of a profit to not only feed you, your employees, your landlord (if you're brick and mortar), and your shareholders, then it's not gonna play.
COUNTER-ATTACK: No, this does not mean that I feel that State direction would be a better means of producing things. The market may suck, but the government gives new meaning to the term 'fucked up piece of shit.'
We're gonna have to figure things out quick, because situations like this are going to become more and more prevalant. The first part of figuring things out is admitting that the dot-con boom helped out open source tremendously. First off, a lot of excess money floatin' around means it's easy to grab a bit of the overflow. Second, ridiculously high paying jobs that are easy to come by means that we can easily work on open source projects on the side. And third, due to the omnipresence of incredibly stupid middle managers who don't know the difference between TCSH, BASH, AND M*A*S*H, means we can work on this stuff while on the company clock, and nobody's the wiser.
But that sweet deal is gone, boys and girls, and it's probably never coming back. Because open source is invincible (meaning it can't be killed, not that it can't be hurt) means that it survived the fallout a lot better that many proprietary systems. But that doesn't mean it's gonna become a whole lot harder to develop.
However, the catch-22 is that, as the economy gets shittier, the more people need cheap software.
So how do give the people (and ourselves) what they want, while at the same time, having enough money to eat and pay rent? (*)
I never said I had the answers, though. But it'll be interesting to see what comes out of it all.
Dominion
Anarchist FAQ
* NOTE: Money to eat and pay rent does not imply that _any_ of us deserve to eat at five star restaurants and live in $1800/mo studio apartments. Let's get off our high horses. We lucked out for a few years in the 90's, but it's ridiculous to assume that we could be a part of that club for very long. And it doesn't really matter, anywhere with cheap rent and good burritos is gonna be infinitely more interesting than any yuppie enclave where the street musicians have been put in jail and everybody goes to sleep at 9:00pm.
It's been done already. Check out the ISO images at www.zelow.no/floppyfw
In fact what happened was that the LRP project leader fell out with just about all the other developers working on it due to political views he expressed on the LRP website.
Most of the other developers found his views pretty outrageous so went and formed the LEAF project The original developer carried on more or less alone with LRP.
So to all intents and purposes, what was once LRP is still alive and well in the form of LEAF.
... you might have noticed this:
LRP == R.I.P. (1997-2002)
Thus he spent alot more than 6 months on the project... it was 5 years!
leaf.sf.net
Not dead. Not even comatose.
Yes, code forks suck.
Yes, trying to make ends meet writing free software is no easier than with many other labors of love.
While I personally feel sorry for Cinege, I use the result of his work 24/7. Not a bad legacy...
What is "fdgw" ?
:-). You can use it as small router, natbox or ADSL router. It is a minimal operating system.
...
"fdgw" is one floppy version of NetBSD/i386. [1] It can run on old machine without HDD
For example, old pc (e.g. IBM PC110) becomes:
pretty ADSL router
pretty router
natbox
your home psuedo firewall
This system also supports DHCP and syslog.
This is similar to router product, off course. The extension is easier and better than router product.
Since the floppy size is very limited, we cannot build all-in-one box. So, "fdgw" provides several models for several purposes. Each model has different built-in applications and kernel configurations. For example, simplest model, "natbox" model supports IPv6 but ADSL router model not support v6 since ADSL router needs more programs, such as pppd and rp-pppoe, than natbox model.
I drank what? -- Socrates
Well, somebody has even made a distribution with dietlibc with minit, embutils, etc. I'm using minit to start some sevices because netkit inetd sucks major ass and truncates my pure-ftpd options (huge command line).
I used to develop for LRP, but stoped as I found that 75% of my time was spent porting samba, exim, etc and fixing mount bugs for NFS as people wanted this for security.....
/etnwork setup package netscript-2.4 to Debian Sid as I am a Debian Developer. this ontains the sum total of my experience as a professional router developer, security neworking specialist etc. More of the Debian Router project will be merged as they are ready and the base parts of it end up in Debian.
I moved on to base all my work round an HD based system as this meant that I could concentrate on thenetworkign and routing software.
Unlike Dave Cinege, I am still using Debian Route Project in my job. You can find it up at http://debian-router.anathoth.gen.nz/
It is still alive and kicking, and I have just submitted the iptables
The stuff on my site would be a good match for Trusted Debian as well.
Enjoy!!
Blah, leaf has been dead & outdated for years. Everyone has moved to LEAF.
http://leaf.sourceforge.net/
This is not a loss. LRP was great tech about 4 years ago. The world moved on, and now everyone uses better tech. Really, just checkout Leaf Bearing for some current 'router on a floppy' tech, and don't even bother reading this guys poor, sad story. He's starting to sound like the CEO of enron.
the freedom is for the users to not owe you a damned thing in return. Well, they do owe you what they build on top of your work, but that's it.
Litigious bastards
Huh! he's right, and it doesn't seem like many folks were very happy with him.
"A language that doesn't affect the way you think about programming, is not worth knowing" - Alan Perlis
That's not how it works. The floppy isn't touched after the system has been booted. You just boot from the floppy, then everything is on a ramdisk.
I set up a box with Coyote Linux (itself based on LRP, IIRC) a year ago. No downtime yet.
Employee of Inrupt, Project Release Manager and Community Manager for Solid
Freesco is a single floppy router/dns/dhcp/etc.
No, they don't. Read sections 2 and 3 of the GPL (version 2) again. Carefully. The FSF's short write-up on selling GPL'ed software might come as something of a surprise to some folks who've not taken the time to look into it.
Placing software under the GPL helps to ensure that it will remain free and that the author will retain the copyright, but it doesn't guarantee that anyone will come offering money to use it. So long as the next person/company down the line abides by the terms of the GPL regarding copyright notices and source code availability the original author isn't automatically entitled to any monetary compensation.
GPL'ed stuff has been a part of some commercial products for a while now. Bundling useful GPL stuff with a Non-GPL proprietary product is a way to provide customers with a set of useful tools which enjoy a wide base of support. WindRiver's V5.1 VxWorks RTOS development suite for SunOS/Solaris is a case in point. And it's perfectly OK under the GPL so long as there's a clear seperate between the GPL and Non-GPL code. GPL code can form the basis for a viable commercial product, even if the source must be readily available, since the number of people with the skills and/or resources to duplicate the derivative work will undoubtedly be much less than those who just want to make use of it without poking under the hood. And for those who do want to poke around, more power to them.
A good example of a commercial product built on Linux and GPL'ed code is Tivo. You can download the source and fiddle around with it if you want to. Has that stopped Tivo from making money? No. Do they pay royalties or other monies back to the original authors of the GPL'ed code? Only if they feel inclined to do so. I don't know if they do or not.
IMHO the LRP died not for lack of technical elegance or application potential, but more for lack of marketing inspiration. Placing a project under the GPL means that one must think about capitalizing on the free distribution and the exposure offered by the open source environment. It's my considered opinion that unless one is willing to offering consulting services, custom modifications, or a useful product in a nicely packaged form ready for use, then just GPL'ing something and expecting the bucks to start rolling in when someone else picks it up and runs with it is only somewhat less realistic than buying weekly lottery tickets and hoping to hit the jackpot.
The alternative, and naive, view that GPL means that it's all free (as in free beer), while wrong according to the FSF, is perhaps a more kindly and community-minded take on it. But it too will lead to starvation just as quickly as unrealistic expectations of income.
So if someone takes some GPL'ed code, modifies it to suit their needs, puts it on a nice silk-screened CD, writes a manual and makes money off of it, then so long as they also make the sources available to the purchaser and keep the copyright notices intact, about the only thing the original author can say is "Shucks, I should have thought of that".
He could be as depressed as Kevin Flanagan was about his life's work .
/ in dustries/5893252.htm
.
...
http://www.charlotte.com/mld/charlotte/business
It made me decide to close my Bank of """America""" account
The Irony...
Bank of America send 1,000 jobs to India
Peace,
Ex-MislTech
google "32 trillion offshore needs IRS attention"
LRP didn't just die. It evolved, or reincarnated. Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall (or LEAF) is the next step. Kernel 2.4 support, several ready distributions for different needs, packaging system, etc..
"LRP is dead" news is more like a bitter cry of an abandoned developer.. If he touts his "next version would've had all these magical abilities", why doesn't he release it? Even a partial implementation would probably attract attention and it could be integrated into other embedded projects.
Linux-on-a-floppy idea is generally just an issue of picking the right components and wrapping it up. I taught a linux-trainee to make an iptables-floppy in one night, just by cut-pasteing parts of a running debian system and compiling a custom kernel.
I'd say that the linux-floppy-culture owns most credit to uClibc and Busybox developers, for making embedded-sized libc and utilities.
It's the same guy. Look at the website advertised in the tag line of this message (https://www.psychosis.com/) then look at the contact email address on http://linuxrouter.org/ (dcinege _at_ psychosis.com).
Theres another very similar, also free, also GPL'd, also linux network-devices-on-a-disk project called Sisela, available here.
It looks fairly promising, though I've never used it or LRP.
LRP was a good alternative when we were given the choice between blowing a couple grand on a new router or using LRP with an obsolete PC that nobody at the office wanted to use. Cheap PC + labor to get LRP configured was less than what it would have cost us to bring a real router.
The problem is that is not the case anymore. Our new T1 here uses a $500 netopia router that took just a few hours to get setup properly (this was mostly due to poor implementation support, we were promised the telco would configure the router and we would only have to plug it in). Even with the trouble we had I would not hesitate to use that kind of router again, instead of trying to build one from scratch with something like LRP.
Pedro
----
The Insomniac Coder
For those who want to roll their own linux router floppy see Linux on a floppy HOWTO
Someone please explain how programmers will make a wage they can live off of in the future...[]...I think its time for us to start working in each other's interest. It seems that programmers are the new exploited class, and perhaps it is time to organize for better labor conditions and stop screwing ourselves over...[]...I like open source, but sometimes I secretly hope for it to fail. Otherwise, I fear, I will be working at MacDonalds, coming home to do my real work for free.
I really wouldn't worry about it so much. People have been writing/distributing free Open Source software since the 1970s and demand for programmers has done nothing but increase. The majority of programming jobs aren't in writing shrink-wrapped software but in writing bespoke systems from companies. The GPL is great if writing in-house software as you can then you can pinch as much GPL software as you like to make yourself more productive, leaving you to tackle the interesting challenges instead of reinventing the wheel all the time. If you ignore the dot-com boom, and the inflated ideas of salary that gave, if you are a good programmer then you shouldn't find it any harder to find a reasonable well paid job than before. Just make sure you get good careers advice (pick right skills for future, start off with big name companies if possible to look good on CV, etc).
Phillip.
Property for sale in Nice, France
Well, perhaps he just isn't as good a programmer as these guys. Or perhaps they made what he started a better thing.
The LRP is dead, long live LEAF - The Linux Embedded Appliance Firewall, based on LRP, with extended Firewall features, and based on Linux 2.4 (i.e. with stateful packet filtering).
Woohoo!
Just thought I would throw in a quick plug for m0n0wall, a linux based firewall that I use.. it is 5mb in size and can run from a HD, an CD and FD combo, or a CF card. With a nice looking web based front end. Also has support for NAT, wireless, a DHCP server, ummm lots of other stuff. m0n0wall site is here if you want more info.
It seems that CF cards are the next thing for the mini-OS's at the moment. Quiet, low power, starting at around 3x the cost of a FDD for about 50 times the space (64mb card).
- Chuq
php dev mailing list (php is bsd based)
due to the "virality" of the GPL they exclude the mysql library from php.
The real free license is BSD based , but there other people can walk away with your work.
I have a project to create a single floppy OpenBSD based firewall. FOAF http://theapt.org/openbsd/foaf.html . It works for me(tm) and is currently protecting my home network. I think other people are using it for their home networks, but no-one has told me such.
Just another alternative. BSD and MIT licensed. =)
Yes, psychosis.com was truly the measure of Cinege's worth. I've known Dave personally "in the real world", and can attest to his rabid beliefs. While I cannot say I *ever* personally liked the man, I can say wholeheartedly that he is among one of the few persons that I have come to detest and hold in immeasurable contempt.
On June 11, 2001 the life of Timothy McVeigh, the infamous and despised Oklahoma City bomber, was brought to an end. While the death of even this human being is not a cause for celebration, the illustrious Mr. Cinege posted on his site a grand tribute to this "hero of the American people". Words cannot express the loathing I have for this person.
I have tried and failed to find pity in my heart for so miserable a creature. I hope that he may someday find peace, but I won't be holding my breath.
Well, they do owe you what they build on top of your work, but that's it.
Actually, they don't. They only need to redistribute changes if they distribute the binaries at all. In house usage doesn't require the code be released at all.
If you do redistribute the binaries, you only need to distribute the code changes to the people who recieve your binaries.
You are taking his comments out of context. He was listing a series of people who would have first hand knowledge of a persons abilities (technical and general), personality, and general reliability. To hiring managers, these are much stronger references than having your name on some OSS project.
Copyright gives you exclusive rights to do things with your creation; you may choose to reserve any or all of these rights to yourself, or to share them with others under the terms of a license. That's all copyright does.
If I GPL something I created from scratch[1], I do not restrict myself in the least. The GPL is where others get their right to use my creation -- my right comes from the fact that I hold the copyright, and can do any damn thing I want with it, including making proprietary branches. If I wrote all of it, I am not bound by any license, including the GPL.
If I use someone else's code licensed to me under the GPL, it's different, and I am bound by the GPL, but that's the price I pay for using that code.
Make me aerodynamic in the evening air
Dave,
.tgz archive and work has and is being done to replace this format. 'apkg' has been available for years and 'is' far more capable than what 'lrpkg' ever has been. In fact, 'apkg' was released while David D. was working from the LRP lists and before the initialization of LEAF, so I would have to assume that you are aware of this.
I am a project member of LEAF and feel somewhat compelled to reply to your comments if you feel inclined to take the time to read them.
LEAF and the literly dozens of other off shoots used the LRP os as their base and then added enhancements mostly via the way of application specific extenstions. I've yet to see any major revamping of the OS itself by anyone else...only upgrades to newer componets. (kernel, busybox, etc...)
While this is true to some extent, much work has gone on beyond your base as well as Matthew Grant's work. Many of us made use of the LRP site's resources though you rarely (if ever) showed any indication of using any of our work or including any other developers in your personal work (which was "LRP" itself). There is little to
none of your code in David Douthitt's "Oxygen" project that has been reworked to necessitate only the kernel patches. The kernel patches do not work with a 2.4.x kernel and any variants using these newer kernels have written their own patches.
My discontent with all of them is LRP had a modular packaging system, and instead of re-releasing the the whole works with a specialized purpose, they could have released *packages*! This would have greatly help the progress of LRP itself.
True to an extent, this package format is little more than a
You will notice there is no 'LEAF OS'. There are like 5 sub-versions on a LEAF site based on the original LRP OS.
Which is the foundation of the LEAF project (found in the FAQ section). Rather LEAF is a project that promotes somewhat similar variants or OS's under an unbrella that encourages every release to do their own thing w/o needing to be constrined to approval by a single person such as LRP was. Many of our variants do still use a some of your base, but this is at a dead-end as far to the degree we could extend it and we are moving on as future development demands and this comment will not be true in any degree with near future releases.
For the most part they did the equivelent of re-releasing Debian instead of creating a '.deb'. Saying LEAF or any of the other direivatives continued the work of LRP is like saying, Tivo continued the work of Redhat. Their goals were very specific, LEAF in particular, to maintain a firewall on a floppy. LRP, name aside (it WAS to be renamed), had the goal of becoming a next generation, general purpose OS, with a highly refined and embedalbe micro core.
I think you will find this already done with Oxygen. It is fair and necessary to state that much of the work that LEAF started from was due to LRP, of which we thank-you for, but life goes on for all of us. There may have been more contributions to the LRP codebase, but you made that virtually impossible when you force your political views on others, especially when it can be construed that we share the same opinion w/o any warning or approval. You have personally nailed the coffin in any future development of LRP and ended what code contributions you 'could' have received due to your ego and disregard for the feelings/opinions of others. I'm sure this has also played out in your empoyablitiy as well, but that is a question that can not be answered by anyone outside of yourself and your past employers.
Nobody in LEAF is selling our code releases or making a living from it. I've personally been employed without work for 6 months myself, but I have no one to blame but myself for this. I have always found your abilities and code to be noteworthy, but this does not mandate that you would be able to make a living from what you give away. You have not made any available updates in around 3 years and I personally find it sad that you have reduced yourself to begging rather than make your useful place in society as most of us have been able to.... if for nothing else, but simply for the necessity of feeding our families.
Sincerely,
Lynn Avants
This is really just not true at all. Below is an excerpt from the BSD license:
Note that you've got to reprint the copyright regardless of whether you distribute in source or binary form. As long as you put your name in the copyright when you release your stuff under the BSD license, you'll get acknowledgement. That's kind of the point of the license actually: there are no restrictions on use beyond giving credit where it's due.
It's not his code that is the problem. The man lies to people on usenet, telling them things that, if they follow them, can get them put in jail.
He supports these lies by citing court cases, that if you go to any law library (every county law library in the US will have copies, so they are easy to find), you can read for yourself and see that there is absolutely no way anyone could misunderstand them the way Cinege does.
There are only two possible conclusions: he is purposefully trying to hurt people, or he is insane and/or very stupid.
In either of those cases, are you going to trust a security product from him? There is not enough time to verify personally all open source code, so at some point, just like with closed source, you need to trust the person/company offering the code. Cinege cannot be trusted. Since there are other router projects from people who aren't known to be either malicious or stupid, there's no reason to use LRP.
LRP is the grand daddy of many "embedded" linux projects. LRP proved two concepts, 1) the need for GPL appliances that run from ram and essentially read-only media, and 2) a clever compressed read-only package system (.lrp instead of .rpm or .deb) for conserving boot media storage space. These ideas spawned LEAF, CoyoteLinux, and forshaddowed Knoppix, which all boot from floppy or CD-R media with compressed files to improve storage.
.lrp packages for other cool features like DNS caching. The .lrp packages were just a renamed .tar.gz with binaries compiled a certain way, but they worked and saved space. Although building an LRP floppy was not easy for a novice, the package system made floppy firewall setup MUCH easier. With developers shrinking package sizes again and again, other lrp packages could be added, or log files could be added. Very clever.
:) ]
...
LRP was floppy firewall distro, that did not need a harddrive. It needed only 386 PC or better, 2 Nics, floppy drive, and sometimes a keyboard and monitor. It did not do fancy things, just NAT routing, firewalling and DHCP. But you could add
But LRP failed to inivate fast enough, (e.g. I lobbied for a bootable CDs, to no avail) or document well enough, so Linux Embedded Application Firewall [LEAF] forked off. LEAF got space on SourceForge and spawned flavors, such as Oxygen, Dachstein, Eiger, Bering and others quickly helped fill out the space, improving core technologies and documentation. LEAF added bootable CDs and tons of packages. But LEAF struggled with picking a GlibC version and development of extensions became some what Balkanized.
The size limitation of the floppy made 2.4 kernal and iptables unatainable. Chuck Stienkhuler removed this boundry with his LRP-CD, which could fit every major linux ethernet driver, and so much more.
When I saw that, I thought, "well why not a full distro on a bootable CD", and was pleasently surprised by finding Knoppix. I even was the first person to mentioned it on Slashdot. [search Knoppix in stories on slashdot and find the first entry
LRP also spawned the CoyoteLinux firewall, which added a Win32 floppy build exe and a linux floppy build bash script. It makes building a floppy firewall really easy.
Death of LRP is not a surprise with LEAF on the scene. There is much life in the "embedded" linux space beyond firewalls. LRP got thing moving and many other GPL projects have adopted the core ideas and kept up the rate of acceleration. Bootable CD distros are exploding, into Mesh Networks, MAME systems, Linux on X-box hacks, PVR systems, LAN MP3 Servers, print server, LAN DNScache/DHCP/NTP server, Honey Pots and on and on. We will se more and more bootable CD distros, that will make our lives easier, and take the strain out of admin and system upgrade. Oh look, a new ISO on line, I down load and reboot my system. If it does not work, I pop the old CD-R back in. No muss, no fuss.
LRP is dead, long live LEAF and Knoppix, and
-Nathaniel
Mac Refugee, Paper MCSE, Linux wanna be.