Sorry. it seems that didn't work too well.;) try this again.
>> It is based on linux kernel 2.2.20 and ipchains.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite. SW was 2.2.19 based when we forked, but who cares.
>> It is GPLed, has a quality web interface, >> and installs fast and easy.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite again. The GUI is quite a bit different.
>> Furthermore, the user list is friendly and >> helpful. I downloaded the iso for it, >> wrote it to a cd, and then took about 15 >> minutes start to finish with the initial >> installation.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
SW has nothing to do with the list. Then again I doubt you were even replying to that so I'll just leave that alone. hehe. However, I must admit that the installation code is still almost 100% based on the original SW code.
>> After that, the fine tuning was handled >> over a very intuitive web interface.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
See above.
>Would ipcop have any users or any on-the-ground >support if they (a) hadn't forked SmoothWall, >and
Do you really want to talk about support?
(b) hadn't been so vocal about forking >it... Yes, forking GPL sources is perfectly >legal, but talk about riding on the back of >someone elses success
Sorry. We ride more on the back you SW's failure. But either way doesn't really matter.
>> It is based on linux kernel 2.2.20 and ipchains.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite. SW was 2.2.19 based when we forked, but who cares.
>> It is GPLed, has a quality web interface,
>> and installs fast and easy.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite again. The GUI is quite a bit different.
>> Furthermore, the user list is friendly and
>> helpful. I downloaded the iso for it,
>> wrote it to a cd, and then took about 15
>> minutes start to finish with the initial
>> installation.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
SW has nothing to do with the list. Then again I doubt you were even replying to that so I'll just leave that alone. hehe. However, I must admit that the installation code is still almost 100% based on the original SW code.
>> After that, the fine tuning was handled
>> over a very intuitive web interface.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
See above.
>Would ipcop have any users or any on-the-ground
>support if they (a) hadn't forked SmoothWall,
>and
Do you really want to talk about support?
(b) hadn't been so vocal about forking
>it... Yes, forking GPL sources is perfectly
>legal, but talk about riding on the back of
>someone elses success
Sorry. We ride more on the back you SW's failure. But either way doesn't really matter.
Charles Williams
PM IPCop Linux
Sorry to burst your bubble but this happened a long time before this article or the CT article came out. Just check the mailing list archives to see what I mean. That's not the first time Mr. Morrell has said something of that nature.
Glad to hear you got most of your problems fixed.
I would still be using smoothwall to this day had everything gone a bit differently. I was seriously impressed with the package back when I first installed it.
At that time I was running across an ISDN connection with 7 clients behind it, and SW worked great.
Now I'm running something different. But I hope that SW still keeps going the way it is.
chuck
Re:No more comments on Morrell, please! Try IPCop!
on
SmoothWall Firewall Review
·
· Score: 2, Informative
Are you speaking of me? Must be.
Anyway, I do not know the gentleman that posted that little piece. However, I do have a tendency to agree with him.
As for the spam. OK, if you see it that way.
Also, I never claimed that it was anything other than a fork. As a matter of fact it's plastered in every piece I write on my site. http://slydder.homelinux.com
I hate not being clear on matters.
As for having problems from SourceForge, I don't think so. But then again if we did it could only be because a certain person keeps on us to remove all mention of SmoothWall. hehe. What a character.
Slashdot Mirror
Sorry. it seems that didn't work too well. ;) try this again.
... Yes, forking GPL sources is perfectly >legal, but talk about riding on the back of >someone elses success
>> It is based on linux kernel 2.2.20 and ipchains.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite. SW was 2.2.19 based when we forked, but who cares.
>> It is GPLed, has a quality web interface, >> and installs fast and easy.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
Not quite again. The GUI is quite a bit different.
>> Furthermore, the user list is friendly and
>> helpful. I downloaded the iso for it,
>> wrote it to a cd, and then took about 15
>> minutes start to finish with the initial
>> installation.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
SW has nothing to do with the list. Then again I doubt you were even replying to that so I'll just leave that alone. hehe. However, I must admit that the installation code is still almost 100% based on the original SW code.
>> After that, the fine tuning was handled
>> over a very intuitive web interface.
>Thanks to SmoothWall.
See above.
>Would ipcop have any users or any on-the-ground >support if they (a) hadn't forked SmoothWall, >and
Do you really want to talk about support?
(b) hadn't been so vocal about forking
>it
Sorry. We ride more on the back you SW's failure. But either way doesn't really matter.
Charles Williams
PM IPCop Linux
>> It is based on linux kernel 2.2.20 and ipchains. >Thanks to SmoothWall. Not quite. SW was 2.2.19 based when we forked, but who cares. >> It is GPLed, has a quality web interface, >> and installs fast and easy. >Thanks to SmoothWall. Not quite again. The GUI is quite a bit different. >> Furthermore, the user list is friendly and >> helpful. I downloaded the iso for it, >> wrote it to a cd, and then took about 15 >> minutes start to finish with the initial >> installation. >Thanks to SmoothWall. SW has nothing to do with the list. Then again I doubt you were even replying to that so I'll just leave that alone. hehe. However, I must admit that the installation code is still almost 100% based on the original SW code. >> After that, the fine tuning was handled >> over a very intuitive web interface. >Thanks to SmoothWall. See above. >Would ipcop have any users or any on-the-ground >support if they (a) hadn't forked SmoothWall, >and Do you really want to talk about support? (b) hadn't been so vocal about forking >it ... Yes, forking GPL sources is perfectly
>legal, but talk about riding on the back of
>someone elses success
Sorry. We ride more on the back you SW's failure. But either way doesn't really matter.
Charles Williams
PM IPCop Linux
From the review:
verify user data
From Daniel Goscomb's reply Authentication
2 different things.
Sorry to burst your bubble but this happened a long time before this article or the CT article came out. Just check the mailing list archives to see what I mean. That's not the first time Mr. Morrell has said something of that nature.
chuck
However, it should be addressed in the next release. chuck
Glad to hear you got most of your problems fixed. I would still be using smoothwall to this day had everything gone a bit differently. I was seriously impressed with the package back when I first installed it. At that time I was running across an ISDN connection with 7 clients behind it, and SW worked great. Now I'm running something different. But I hope that SW still keeps going the way it is. chuck
Are you speaking of me? Must be.
Anyway, I do not know the gentleman that posted that little piece. However, I do have a tendency to agree with him.
As for the spam. OK, if you see it that way.
Also, I never claimed that it was anything other than a fork. As a matter of fact it's plastered in every piece I write on my site. http://slydder.homelinux.com
I hate not being clear on matters.
As for having problems from SourceForge, I don't think so. But then again if we did it could only be because a certain person keeps on us to remove all mention of SmoothWall. hehe. What a character.
chuck