OK, fine, I can accept that this is your opinion. Unfortunately,
platforms adequate for firewall use should not be based upon opinion, but
on fact and/or example. What situations were you in when your system
"cracked". If you have a linux system that is cracking when put to the
test, then I question your ability to set up a "well configured, "stable"
machine". As I have stated, I use several linux servers running on
(actual) well configured platforms as corporate firewall systems with
heavy network bandwidth demand. They perform brilliantly every time. I
have zero OS related crashes in over two years of uptime. In fact, the
only crashes I have handled are hardware related. I would venture a guess
as to say that your statements are biased, or uninformed, or quite simply
that you are not setting these systems up correctly.
I am not here to say that linux is better than any BSD variant. In fact,
I am not even discussing any BSD OS. I am simply stating that your claims
as to the stability, reliability, and performance of linux as a viable
firewall platform are wrong and without any basis of fact or example.
--------------------
Greg Whalin
gwhalin @
numerix .
com
On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, john wrote:
> Actually, i'm on a Linux 2.0.30 machine right now. I've run linux since
> near it's inception and I can say it's a nice OS, for a devolper. I've
> seen it put to the test - and granted - it sometimes runs ok, but far more
> times i've seen it croak and die, on well configured, "stable" machines..
>
> I've been running FreeBSD for all of my commercial applications, be they
> serveing webpages, or firewalling, and i've been much more impressed with
> it's stability, sense of security, and in some respects, it's preformance.
>
> If I was to ever consider useing either of them for something that needed
> to be protected, I would choose FreeBSD - no questions asked.
>
> But I will always love Linux for my home masqueradeing setup :)
>
> Not saying one is nessescarly better than the other, they both have their
> applications. But for firewalling, and packet filtering, BSD definatly has
> the edge. In my opinion.
>
>
> On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, Joe Klemmer wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 30 Oct 1997, john wrote:
> >
> > > In my experience... with the free OS's, this is what I have to say:
> > >
> > > Linux is good for low bandwidth situations where setup time is a concern,
> > > and reliability isn't an absolute nesscity.
> > >
> > > FreeBSD/OpenBSD/NetBSD etc has proven to generally be reliable in
> > > high-stress conditions, but isn't quite as easy to setup.
> >
> > It must have been a long time since you've looked at Linux, then.
> > It's current state is equal or better at networking that the BSD's.
> >
> > ---
> > Microsoft is not the answer. | In a World Without Fences,
> > Microsoft is the question, | Who Needs Gates?
> > NO is the answer. | Linux - http://www.linux.org
> >
> >
>
Follow-Ups:
References:
|
|
