IPCop vs Smoothwall

[Erik Bixby]

"(not to suggest that smoothwall isn't good)."

I wouldn't say Smoothwall is bad, either.  IPCop is a fork of
Smoothwall, therefor they have quite a bit in common.  Most people
prefer IPCop because you get everything for free.  With Smoothwall,
you get the basics, and harassment to "upgrade" anytime you ask for
help.  I'd classify that as a problem with the people behind
Smoothwall, not the software itself.
-Erik

On 3/31/06, Craig White <craigwhite at azapple.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-03-31 at 07:49 -0700, Erik Bixby wrote:
> > "> - Squid does transparent proxying so it can't be bypassed
> >
> > Web proxying is one (I think the only) feature of IPCop I'm not (yet)
> > using. I'm not sure if there's really a difference here or not."
> >
> > IPCop does transparent proxying, as well.  I am not aware of any
> > feature that the "free" version of Smoothwall has that IPCop does not.
> >  However, I can tell you that when I switched the "free" version of
> > Smoothwall did not support multiple IP addresses on the "red"
> > interface, and did not support traffic shaping.  IPCop does both
> > these.
> ----
> it was the lack of multiple red interfaces on free version of smoothwall
> and the possibility of same on ipcop that drove me from smoothwall to
> ipcop and I've been happy since (not to suggest that smoothwall isn't
> good).
>
> 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
>