IPCop 0.1.1 Review
Selanit writes "I just found a link on Distrowatch to a SecurityFocus Review of IP Cop 0.1.1. IP Cop is a fork of the GPL version of the Smoothwall Linux firewall distro, which had a review linked by Slashdot. Though it has a slick, easy install. and good features, a number of people had issues with Smoothwall.. IPCop has implemented shadow passwords to fix the security flaw, and their mission statement includes a provision that they will "Provide an enjoyable environment for the Public to discuss and request assistance." The
to-do list of features for the upcoming 0.2 version is also interesting. "
We have tried IPCop 0.1.1 at the office, and it has one very big advantage over using a general purpose distribution: it installs and comes up running very quickly. From inserting the CDROM to completion of the install on a typical system (200MHz Pentium with 64MB memory) it took about 14 minutes to having it running.
We use it as a three-way firewall with a DMZ, and that is stone-cold simple to install. Slick, with no problems.
Highly recommended!
Soli Deo Gloria
I have read over IPCop configurations and documentations several times before, and it is definitely a good solution for a simple home office or other small business network. It is fairly simple to use and setup, and fairly robust in operations. However, there is one thing that it lacks, as well as what many other solutions lack: the ability to handle redundant internet access. Although I have not looked at every single software solution for routing and networking on this scale, there still seems to be a lack of redundant-internet-connection support in the field. The ability to use multiple internet connections for backup in a single software solution, as well as to use multiple internet connections to increase overall bandwidth, seems to be missing.
Has anyone run across developing projects (or already developed projects) that are trying to accomplish this sort of feat? I have seen a hardware solution or two that have tried to work this problem, but they are rather impractical for a home office user who needs redundancy (telecommuting, etc) or expansion of their bandwidth (kids playing games while they need to transfer projects around, etc) for their home network. Can anyone comment on this subject?
Actually, as a member of the IPCop user mailing list, I'd have to say that any ill-will has been pretty well restrained. The list might occasionally flare with the occasional flame, but the moderators of the list do a pretty good job of keeping it all in check.
.2 release, and I'm looking forward to seeing where these efforts go. While Smoothwall GPL support seems to have stalled in a few areas (most notably USB Speedtouch modem speeds) IPCop continues with the full effort of the team.
IPCop has the goal of planning a large rewrite for the
My own pointless vanity vintage computing page
- IPCop lacks Richard Morrell.
- IPCop fixes the long-known USB ADSL bug with Smoothwall -- which cripples upload speed to 3K/s instead of 30K/s.
- No nagware, adverts, requirements to donate to get basic support, etc.
- Smoothwall GPL is treated and referred to as 'trialware' by the Smoothwall development team, and is essentially dead as GPL project.
Smoothwall is in my opinion perhaps the most ungraceful transition from a pure open-source project to a business in recent history.matter-of-fact, phil barnett, who use to run the unofficial smoothwall mailing lists (even before smoothwall.org had an "official" mailing list), says something along those same lines here.
a major rewrite is planned for 0.2, which will clearly differentiate ipcop from smoothwall.
but was the logistical problem really that big, big enough to necessitate a fork? what follows is a repost from the official smoothwall "users" mailing list where all i did was inquire about the GPLed kernel sources and patches used in the distribution. i didn't ask for the smoothwall project to provide them, but only to state what they were so that i could find, download, and rebuild the kernel sources with qos (quality-of-service) capabilities enabled, one that would be as similar as possible to the smoothwall kernel (for a drop-in replacement).
i thought one of the original benefits richard stallman intended for GPLed software is that the user can infinitely customize and tailor the product to suit them and there is no vendor lock-in as the source code can be altered for the customer by third-parties? isn't the GPL about the customer? obviously smoothwall management (richard morrell, "project manager and founder") doesn't have anything (especially ideals) in common with stallman besides a first name.
note: yeah, i've removed the email addresses and phone numbers contained in the following message. as much as i disagree with richard morrell's attitude, i don't wish spambots or people upon him or his email addresses (see "Golden Rule", Matthew 7:12 & Luke 6:31).
i never received any follow-up or further assistance from the smoothwall team (if you even dare to call the above "assistance"), but eventually reached my goal with the helpful detective work of another smoothwall user, who had also received a similar reply from smoothwall management to a similar request.
and this is why i do not recommend nor support smoothwall, and instead point to the ipcop project.