[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]
[no subject]
- <!--x-content-type: text/plain -->
- <!--x-date: Thu Feb 5 22:10:49 2004 -->
- <!--x-from-r13: gubznfjbbq ng znp.pbz (Fubznf Ibbq) -->
- <!--x-message-id: 0198FF48-5852-11D8-967E-[email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] -->
- <!--x-reference: [email protected] --> "http://www.w3.org/TR/html4/loose.dtd">
- <!--x-subject: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0? -->
- <li><em>date</em>: Thu Feb 5 22:10:49 2004</li>
- <li><em>from</em>: thomaswood at mac.com (Thomas Wood)</li>
- <li><em>in-reply-to</em>: <<a href="msg00189.html">[email protected]</a>></li>
- <li><em>references</em>: <<a href="msg00077.html">[email protected]</a>> <<a href="msg00189.html">[email protected]</a>></li>
- <li><em>subject</em>: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</li>
HTH
wood
On Feb 5, 2004, at 9:15 PM, James Sumners wrote:
> Thanks for the input. I have IPCop running in a virtual environment
> right now to
> test it out. So far I really dig it.
>
> James Sumners
>
> On Tue, 3 Feb 2004 21:54:05 -0500
> James Sumners <james at sumners.ath.cx> wrote:
>
>> I am considering replacing a Linksys WRT54G with a Linux box. The
>> Linksys is
>> working fine but it doesn't quite cut it. My question to you is,
>> would you
>> recommend Smoothwall 2.0 over IPCop 1.3.0 or vice versa? I don't
>> really want
>> to sit down and write my own firewall scripts and web front end when
>> there is
>> already a solution.
>>
>> I know that IPCop is a fork of Smoothwall but it forked a long time
>> ago. I
>> will be playing with both of them in a virtual environment but it may
>> be some
>> time before I get that set up and I would like to know if someone
>> already has
>> an opinion of one over the other (e.g. this one does this where that
>> one
>> doesn't type stuff).
>>
>> --
>>
>> I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see of it the
>> more it
>> looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find
>> anything
>> technically interesting there. In my opinion MS is a lot better at
>> making
>> money than it is at making good operating systems. -- Linus Torvalds
>>
>
>
> --
>
> I used to be interested in Windows NT, but the more I see of it the
> more it
> looks like traditional Windows with a stabler kernel. I don't find
> anything
> technically interesting there. In my opinion MS is a lot better at
> making money
> than it is at making good operating systems. -- Linus Torvalds
> _______________________________________________
> Ale mailing list
> Ale at ale.org
> <a rel="nofollow" href="http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale">http://www.ale.org/mailman/listinfo/ale</a>
</pre>
<!--X-Body-of-Message-End-->
<!--X-MsgBody-End-->
<!--X-Follow-Ups-->
<hr>
<!--X-Follow-Ups-End-->
<!--X-References-->
<ul><li><strong>References</strong>:
<ul>
<li><strong><a name="00077" href="msg00077.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> james at sumners.ath.cx (James Sumners)</li></ul></li>
<li><strong><a name="00189" href="msg00189.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
<ul><li><em>From:</em> james at sumners.ath.cx (James Sumners)</li></ul></li>
</ul></li></ul>
<!--X-References-End-->
<!--X-BotPNI-->
<ul>
<li>Prev by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00192.html">[ale] [OT] Voting Security</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by Date:
<strong><a href="msg00194.html">[ale] SCP problem</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Previous by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00189.html">[ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Next by thread:
<strong><a href="msg00209.html">Router distro (was Re: [ale] Smoothwall 2.0 or IPCop 1.3.0?)</a></strong>
</li>
<li>Index(es):
<ul>
<li><a href="maillist.html#00193"><strong>Date</strong></a></li>
<li><a href="threads.html#00193"><strong>Thread</strong></a></li>
</ul>
</li>
</ul>
<!--X-BotPNI-End-->
<!--X-User-Footer-->
<!--X-User-Footer-End-->
</body>
</html>