IPCop vs Smoothwall

[George Toft]

The current version (2.0) uses 2.4.x kernel and iptables

George Toft, CISSP, MSIS
My IT Department
www.myITaz.com
480-544-1067

In business, there are always problems.  It's how they are handled
that makes a difference.  Are you happy with your IT Manager?


Craig White wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-03-30 at 21:13 -0700, George Toft wrote:
> 
>>Let me be the lone voice in support of smoothwall...
>>
>>I like Smoothwall for the following reasons:
>>- Point and click web-based interface
>>- Plug in modules to add additional functionality
>>- It is supported by Fujitsu and USRobotics (well, kinda)
>>- Squid does transparent proxying so it can't be bypassed
>>- "It just works"
>>
>>I don't like Smoothwall for the following reasons:
>>- The OS is just plain weird.  Yes, it is Linux, but it does not look 
>>like Debian, Slack nor any RH/Fedora derivitave.  I may be mistaken, but 
>>it is different.
>>- Running SmoothWall takes a beefier box than I expected.  I am having 
>>problems making it run reliably on a 486DX2 with 40 MB RAM :)  It runs 
>>really well on 1.7GHz/256MB RAM.
> 
> ----
> the last time I looked...and it's been some # of years, smoothwall was
> based on Red Hat 6.2 system - ipchains, though they probably have done
> some updating.
> 
> ipcop I understand is done with LFS.
> 
> Both had very spartan intentions to be run on minimal hardware setups
> 
> Craig
> 
> ---------------------------------------------------
> PLUG-discuss mailing list - PLUG-discuss at lists.plug.phoenix.az.us
> To subscribe, unsubscribe, or to change  you mail settings:
> http://lists.PLUG.phoenix.az.us/mailman/listinfo/plug-discuss
> 
> 
>