Just to clear things up.<br><br>On 3/30/06, <b class="gmail_sendername">Eric Shubes</b> &lt;<a href="mailto:plug@shubes.net">plug@shubes.net</a>&gt; wrote:<div><span class="gmail_quote"></span><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
&gt; - Squid does transparent proxying so it can't be bypassed<br><br>Web proxying is one (I think the only) feature of IPCop I'm not (yet)<br>using. I'm not sure if there's really a difference here or not.</blockquote><div>
<br>No difference, IPCop also uses Squid as its web proxy.<br></div><br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">&gt; I don't like Smoothwall for the following reasons:
<br>&gt; - The OS is just plain weird.&nbsp;&nbsp;Yes, it is Linux, but it does not look<br>&gt; like Debian, Slack nor any RH/Fedora derivitave.&nbsp;&nbsp;I may be mistaken, but<br>&gt; it is different.<br><br>So is IPCop. I haven't had to get into the internals though, so it
<br>doesn't really matter. Updates are through web browser function. The<br>only reason I've had to ssh into the box is to change nic configuration<br>or reset admin password.</blockquote><div><br>IPCop is essentially the same as any other Linux system, minus a lot of binaries and other pork. I forget what it was originally based off of, whatever Smoothwall was based on (IPCop is a fork of SW). The only real downside I've found in it's &quot;internals&quot; is its lack of the GNU compiler collection, along with make and it's utils, which can make it more complicated to manually add things to the system. Oh well, good thing we have -static. ;)
<br></div></div><br>