The best firewall is?

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to much
resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another firewall
a try.

Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall......
_______________________
]-[ans

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:12:37 -0700, Purl Gurl <purlgurl@purlgurl.net>
wrote:

> ]-[ans wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> > preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall.
>
>
> The best firewall is "Air Gap" manufactured by you.
>
> This is an easy to employ firewall; simply disconnect
> your computer from the internet, unplug it, "air gap."
>
> Second best firewall is to turn your computer off.
>
> I could not resist commenting.
>
> Any up to debating those methods are not the best firewalls?
>
> Zone Alarm 3.x series is the best "personal" firewall I have
> tested, to date. That is the free version, not the pro version.
>
> Yes, that is the 3.x series, not the 4.x series nor 5.x series.
>
>
> Purl Gurl


Thanks, I'll give Air Gap a try. Seems to be a solid product.....

Do you think that switching off my computer improves it's specs?

I won't be able though to respond to your future messages due to
strick firewall settings. argh, argh.....
______________________________________________________________________
]-[ans

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 09:38:02 -0700, Purl Gurl <purlgurl@purlgurl.net>
wrote:

> ]-[ans wrote:
>
> > Purl Gurl wrote:
> > > ]-[ans wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> > > > Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> > > > preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall.
>
> > > The best firewall is "Air Gap" manufactured by you.
>
> > Thanks, I'll give Air Gap a try. Seems to be a solid product.....
>
> > Do you think that switching off my computer improves it's specs?
>
> Well, I dunno if your specs will improve but there is
> always this excitement of,
>
> "Will my computer boot or not?"
>
> Fifty-fifty bet on that!
To boot or not to boot, that's the question...
(shakespeertopeer 2004)
>
>
> > I won't be able though to respond to your future messages due to
> > strick firewall settings. argh, argh.....
>
> Heh! I told you Air Gap is the best!
>
>
> Besides Zone Alarm, I understand Sysgate is pretty good, as well.
>
I'm looking at it right now.
>
> Purl Gurl

Thanks
______________________________________________________________________
]-[ans

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:21:05 +0200, ]-[ans spoketh

>At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to much
>resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another firewall
>a try.
>
>Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
>preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall......
>_______________________
>]-[ans

There is no "best" firewall.

The best firewall is the one you are most familiar with. There's plenty
of free options out there, including ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio and Outpost.

It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall. If you opt to
remove it, you should also consider getting a new anti-virus solution.

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:6jgmc0pse4e8ra3ktktp6ah1qjgek03s99@4ax.com
> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:21:05 +0200, ]-[ans spoketh
>
>> At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to
>> much resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another
>> firewall a try.

>>
>> Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
>> preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall......
>> _______________________
>> ]-[ans
>
> There is no "best" firewall.
>
> The best firewall is the one you are most familiar with. There's
> plenty of free options out there, including ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio
> and Outpost.
>
> It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall. If you opt
> to remove it, you should also consider getting a new anti-virus
> solution.
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> www.hansenonline.net
> Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
> "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free software?
That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for their work, they
do a much better job.

PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!

As the Dutch are fond of saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 11:35:48 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh

>
>Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free software?
>That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for their work, they
>do a much better job.
>
>PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!
>

The problem with security suites such as NIS and McAfee ISS is that they
are bloated. They are huge, both on disk and in memory, and that taxes
the system more than it has to.

The "alternative" solutions, such as Kerio and Tiny, aren't trying to be
all things to all people, but rather a small, fast desktop firewall
solution. Thus, they take up less resources, and doesn't slow down
things as much as a larger application.

It's not a question of best, it's a question of which does a better job
on a given system without taxing it to death.

Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Purl Gurl" <purlgurl@purlgurl.net> schreef in bericht
news:40CB2B75.972B6CA7@purlgurl.net...
> ]-[ans wrote:
>
> (snipped)
>
> > Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> > preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall.
>
>
> The best firewall is "Air Gap" manufactured by you.


I'm afraid "Air Gap" isn't going to give you much protection when using a
wireless network.




--
regards,

|\ /|
| \/ |@rk
\../
\/os

mccm dot vos at hccnet dot nl
URL http://home.hccnet.nl/mccm.vos/

ICQ 326628

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:10cmj84qde8blef@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
> news:6jgmc0pse4e8ra3ktktp6ah1qjgek03s99@4ax.com
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:21:05 +0200, ]-[ans spoketh
> >
> >> At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to
> >> much resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another
> >> firewall a try.
>
> >>
> >> Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> >> preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall......
> >> _______________________
> >> ]-[ans
> >
> > There is no "best" firewall.
> >
> > The best firewall is the one you are most familiar with. There's
> > plenty of free options out there, including ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio
> > and Outpost.
> >
> > It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall. If you opt
> > to remove it, you should also consider getting a new anti-virus
> > solution.
> >
> > Lars M. Hansen
> > www.hansenonline.net
> > Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
> > "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
>
> Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free software?
> That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for their work, they
> do a much better job.

What a load of bollocks. Zone Alarm for example has a free version that is
in all respects the same as the paid for version. It just lacks some
features that a home user might not need. It may be free but it was still
written by people that get paid a wage. Having said that, reading some of
the reports of problems on the latest version they perhaps shouldn't have
been paid quite so much:-)

You have mis-read and twisted what Lars said.

Just as it is true that the best software is not free, neither is every
commercial application the best.

The best software is the one that does the job within the budget constraints
of the customer. I have clients that have huge Watchguard firewalls and
others that have secondhand PCs running IPcop. Each solution is the best for
them.


> PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!

Why when an open source solution will do the job better than a commercial
solution?

I wonder why the top web server is Apache and not IIS?

I wonder why most ISP mail servers are sendmail and postfix and not
Exchange?

The answer is simple. They are the right tools for the job.

> As the Dutch are fond of saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."

Quite right. Open source is not free.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

>
> Open Source works for ONE reason: People like you are GREEDY animals.
> Start paying for your software.
>

Sorry, I cannot see that this discussion about freeware/shareware vs.
licensing has much to do on this newsgroup. This group is set up to discuss
firewalls in whichever form and shape they come.

Since the discussion is now also using names calling and showing emotions on
the roll, I suggest that those interested in the battle between commercial
and free SW take this to somewhere where that is the theme of the
discussions.

JMM

PS. No, I am not a moderator of this free newsgroup, nor do I intend to
become one.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:10coolp44ke4f3f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike" <mike@michaelmoyse.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:cahcpu$mkg$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
> > "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in
> > message news:10cmj84qde8blef@corp.supernews.com...
> >> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
> >> news:6jgmc0pse4e8ra3ktktp6ah1qjgek03s99@4ax.com
> >>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:21:05 +0200, ]-[ans spoketh
> >>>
> >>>> At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to
> >>>> much resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another
> >>>> firewall a try.
> >>
> >>>>
> >>>> Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> >>>> preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software
> >>>> firewall...... _______________________
> >>>> ]-[ans
> >>>
> >>> There is no "best" firewall.
> >>>
> >>> The best firewall is the one you are most familiar with. There's
> >>> plenty of free options out there, including ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio
> >>> and Outpost.
> >>>
> >>> It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall. If you opt
> >>> to remove it, you should also consider getting a new anti-virus
> >>> solution.
> >>>
> >>> Lars M. Hansen
> >>> www.hansenonline.net
> >>> Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
> >>> "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
> >>
> >> Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free
> >> software? That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for
> >> their work, they do a much better job.
> >
> > What a load of bollocks. Zone Alarm for example has a free version
> > that is in all respects the same as the paid for version. It just
> > lacks some features that a home user might not need. It may be free
> > but it was still written by people that get paid a wage. Having said
> > that, reading some of the reports of problems on the latest version
> > they perhaps shouldn't have been paid quite so much:-)
> >
> > You have mis-read and twisted what Lars said.
> >
> > Just as it is true that the best software is not free, neither is
> > every commercial application the best.
> >
> > The best software is the one that does the job within the budget
> > constraints of the customer. I have clients that have huge Watchguard
> > firewalls and others that have secondhand PCs running IPcop. Each
> > solution is the best for them.
> >
> >
> >> PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!
> >
> > Why when an open source solution will do the job better than a
> > commercial solution?
> >
> > I wonder why the top web server is Apache and not IIS?
> >
> > I wonder why most ISP mail servers are sendmail and postfix and not
> > Exchange?
> >
> > The answer is simple. They are the right tools for the job.
> >
> >> As the Dutch are fond of saying, "There's no such thing as a free
> >> lunch."
> >
> > Quite right. Open source is not free.
>
> Open Source works for ONE reason: People like you are GREEDY animals.
> Start paying for your software.

You are confusing free speech with free beer. Go away and read about Open
Source and come back when you have been educated.

Like it or not you use Open Source software everyday. The newserver you are
using is probably open source. The mail server your isp uses is probably
Sendmail and open source. The vast majority of web sites you visit are
running the open source server Apache.

If it wasn't for Open Source you and I would probably not be having this
conversation or if we were we would probably be paying per line per message
(Rather like SMS etc).

And don't assume that I don't pay for my software. I have several Pcs here
running 2000 & XP with Microsoft Office all paid for. I have 2 Microsoft
servers. one 2003 and one NT4, paid for. I also have 3 Linux servers, free
and a Linux firewall, free.

Open Source works because it is good code. My regular security mail from
Watchguard has a large article about using Snort. A commercial organistation
promoting Open Source! Here is a quote from the newsletter:-

<QUOTE>
Snort is a great NIDS to use for a number of reasons. First, you really
can't beat the price: it's free. Second, Snort is diverse enough to work in
almost any network environment, since it installs in most flavors of Linux,
BSD, Solaris and Windows. Third, Snort runs on open-source code, an
advantage for any security product. Programmers and security experts from
all over have viewed the source code and audited the application for
security flaws. Having an entire community of programmers checking the code,
instead of just a small team at an individual company, potentially makes
open-source products amongst the most secure available.
</QUOTE>

So go figure. The worlds top firewall manufacturer saying that an Open
Source package is the best one to use.

The sooner you realise that the middle ground is the correct route, the
sooner you will start to benfit with the rest of us.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
news:st1rc05f9qoug5553e91quiskj4mvp1l7m@4ax.com
> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:11:14 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh
>
>>
>> If you people are so enamored with commercial software, WHY are you
>> not RECOMMENDING it, instead of "free" software?
>
> What difference does it make? The OP already has a "commercial"
> software firewall, and he was looking for a replacement that were
> less taxing on his system. The answer to that question is not going
> to be McAfee, because that is just as big and bulky, if not more.
>
> Considering the fact that the free options, such as Kerio, Outpost,
> Tiny, and ZoneAlarm are all good options, (just as good firewalls as
> the commercial options), why not recommend the free ones? Should one
> not recommend something because it's cheap or free?
>
> You mentioned earlier that ZAP has some features that the free version
> does have, such as pop-up blockers and content blocking. Well, not
> everyone needs or wants that, so why pay for ZAP if the freeware
> solution does the job? Do you think everyone has a rich dad to pay for
> everything??
>
> Lars M. Hansen
> http://www.hansenonline.net
> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)

I live on a fixed income, yet even I am able to afford to pay for my
firewall software. The fact is, the millions of addictive users of
so-called "free" software, are in reality just greedy. The people who
write "free" software would rather you PAID for their software. I know of
very few developers who write "free" software for un-self-serving reasons.
Which only proves to me that the users of so-called "free" software, who
would rather use the "free" software instead of paying for it, are greedy.
An honest man would be willing to pay for the services he receives. The
millions of users of "free" software wouldn't pay for the gum they chewed,
if they didn't have to. As far as I am concerned, they are no better than
thieves. In fact, they are WORSE than thieves, because they are STEALING
what is being offered freely to them.

By the way, anyone without content filtering in this day and age deserves
the nasties he is bound to get. And what's the difference in the load to
system resources by using one all-in-one software product, and using two or
more stand-alone products to accomplish what a single all-in-one product can
accomplish with greater ease of use?

Everytime I have used so-called "free" software, I have been badly
disappointed. Much of the "free" software floating around on the Internet
is written by amateurs, with little sense of proper design concepts. Much
of Linux is like that, written by amateurs, and their lack of professional
design concepts is reflected in the apps they write. Clunky and buggy.
That pretty much defines Linux apps (and most "free" software in general).

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 06:00:59 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh

>
>By the way, anyone without content filtering in this day and age deserves
>the nasties he is bound to get. And what's the difference in the load to
>system resources by using one all-in-one software product, and using two or
>more stand-alone products to accomplish what a single all-in-one product can
>accomplish with greater ease of use?
>

I haven't had any content filtering software for 10 years, and I have
yet to get any malware on any of my computers. I have not have a virus
on any of my computers since 1992, so obviously, I'm doing something
right...

The difference is that Norton Anti-Virus 2003 (which I have paid for,
including subscription updates) uses just about 10MB of RAM. AVG uses
2MB of RAM. That's 8 MB in "savings" right there. Also, NAV2003 uses
over 80MB of disk space, AVG uses less than 25MB.

>
>Everytime I have used so-called "free" software, I have been badly
>disappointed.

Unfortunately, that probably says more about you than the software...
I've tested all the firewalls that I've commented about here, and they
all do as good a job at protecting your computer as NPF, ZoneAlarm Pro
or any other "commercial" product. Some even includes pop-up blockers
and content scanning ...


>Much of the "free" software floating around on the Internet
>is written by amateurs, with little sense of proper design concepts.

Really? You have any URLs to back up this claim? I would think the
people at ZoneLabs (now Checkpoint), Kerio Technologies, Grisoft or Tiny
Software would agree that their programming staff are a bunch of no-good
amateurs.


Lars M. Hansen
www.hansenonline.net
Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
"If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:10cr8ccgugvtm1a@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
> news:st1rc05f9qoug5553e91quiskj4mvp1l7m@4ax.com
> > On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:11:14 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh
> >
> >>
> >> If you people are so enamored with commercial software, WHY are you
> >> not RECOMMENDING it, instead of "free" software?
> >
> > What difference does it make? The OP already has a "commercial"
> > software firewall, and he was looking for a replacement that were
> > less taxing on his system. The answer to that question is not going
> > to be McAfee, because that is just as big and bulky, if not more.
> >
> > Considering the fact that the free options, such as Kerio, Outpost,
> > Tiny, and ZoneAlarm are all good options, (just as good firewalls as
> > the commercial options), why not recommend the free ones? Should one
> > not recommend something because it's cheap or free?
> >
> > You mentioned earlier that ZAP has some features that the free version
> > does have, such as pop-up blockers and content blocking. Well, not
> > everyone needs or wants that, so why pay for ZAP if the freeware
> > solution does the job? Do you think everyone has a rich dad to pay for
> > everything??
> >
> > Lars M. Hansen
> > http://www.hansenonline.net
> > (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
>
> I live on a fixed income, yet even I am able to afford to pay for my
> firewall software. The fact is, the millions of addictive users of
> so-called "free" software, are in reality just greedy. The people who
> write "free" software would rather you PAID for their software. I know of
> very few developers who write "free" software for un-self-serving reasons.
> Which only proves to me that the users of so-called "free" software, who
> would rather use the "free" software instead of paying for it, are greedy.
> An honest man would be willing to pay for the services he receives. The
> millions of users of "free" software wouldn't pay for the gum they chewed,
> if they didn't have to. As far as I am concerned, they are no better than
> thieves. In fact, they are WORSE than thieves, because they are STEALING
> what is being offered freely to them.
>
> By the way, anyone without content filtering in this day and age deserves
> the nasties he is bound to get. And what's the difference in the load to
> system resources by using one all-in-one software product, and using two
or
> more stand-alone products to accomplish what a single all-in-one product
can
> accomplish with greater ease of use?
>
> Everytime I have used so-called "free" software, I have been badly
> disappointed. Much of the "free" software floating around on the Internet
> is written by amateurs, with little sense of proper design concepts. Much
> of Linux is like that, written by amateurs, and their lack of professional
> design concepts is reflected in the apps they write. Clunky and buggy.
> That pretty much defines Linux apps (and most "free" software in general).

Now you are just being provocative. You are showing your complete ignorance
of open source and blaming your inability to understand how to operate Linux
apps properly on the programmers. Sure Linux apps are not point and clicky
and that can confuse the uninitiated but by no stretch of even your vivid
imagination can they be described as clunky.

Once again to prove you completely and utterly wrong, the Watchguard Firebox
range of firewalls runs a hardend *nux and uses Iptables which Watchguard
fund the development of.. The latest range of Dlink DSL routers like the
DSL-604T all run a version of Linux on compact flash.

There is nothing wrong with Linux other than your inability to understand
how to use it.

If you really feel that strongly about not using free software, I suggest
you stop using the internet.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Mike" <mike@notherematey.com> wrote in message
news:cal0vs$gc5$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
> "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in
> message news:10cr8ccgugvtm1a@corp.supernews.com...
>> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
>> news:st1rc05f9qoug5553e91quiskj4mvp1l7m@4ax.com
>>> On Sun, 13 Jun 2004 20:11:14 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh
>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you people are so enamored with commercial software, WHY are you
>>>> not RECOMMENDING it, instead of "free" software?
>>>
>>> What difference does it make? The OP already has a "commercial"
>>> software firewall, and he was looking for a replacement that were
>>> less taxing on his system. The answer to that question is not going
>>> to be McAfee, because that is just as big and bulky, if not more.
>>>
>>> Considering the fact that the free options, such as Kerio, Outpost,
>>> Tiny, and ZoneAlarm are all good options, (just as good firewalls as
>>> the commercial options), why not recommend the free ones? Should one
>>> not recommend something because it's cheap or free?
>>>
>>> You mentioned earlier that ZAP has some features that the free
>>> version does have, such as pop-up blockers and content blocking.
>>> Well, not everyone needs or wants that, so why pay for ZAP if the
>>> freeware solution does the job? Do you think everyone has a rich
>>> dad to pay for everything??
>>>
>>> Lars M. Hansen
>>> http://www.hansenonline.net
>>> (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
>>
>> I live on a fixed income, yet even I am able to afford to pay for my
>> firewall software. The fact is, the millions of addictive users of
>> so-called "free" software, are in reality just greedy. The people
>> who write "free" software would rather you PAID for their software.
>> I know of very few developers who write "free" software for
>> un-self-serving reasons. Which only proves to me that the users of
>> so-called "free" software, who would rather use the "free" software
>> instead of paying for it, are greedy. An honest man would be willing
>> to pay for the services he receives. The millions of users of
>> "free" software wouldn't pay for the gum they chewed, if they didn't
>> have to. As far as I am concerned, they are no better than thieves.
>> In fact, they are WORSE than thieves, because they are STEALING what
>> is being offered freely to them.
>>
>> By the way, anyone without content filtering in this day and age
>> deserves the nasties he is bound to get. And what's the difference
>> in the load to system resources by using one all-in-one software
>> product, and using two or more stand-alone products to accomplish
>> what a single all-in-one product can accomplish with greater ease of
>> use?
>>
>> Everytime I have used so-called "free" software, I have been badly
>> disappointed. Much of the "free" software floating around on the
>> Internet is written by amateurs, with little sense of proper design
>> concepts. Much of Linux is like that, written by amateurs, and
>> their lack of professional design concepts is reflected in the apps
>> they write. Clunky and buggy. That pretty much defines Linux apps
>> (and most "free" software in general).
>
> Now you are just being provocative. You are showing your complete
> ignorance of open source and blaming your inability to understand how
> to operate Linux apps properly on the programmers. Sure Linux apps
> are not point and clicky and that can confuse the uninitiated but by
> no stretch of even your vivid imagination can they be described as
> clunky.
>
> Once again to prove you completely and utterly wrong, the Watchguard
> Firebox range of firewalls runs a hardend *nux and uses Iptables
> which Watchguard fund the development of.. The latest range of Dlink
> DSL routers like the DSL-604T all run a version of Linux on compact
> flash.
>
> There is nothing wrong with Linux other than your inability to
> understand how to use it.
>
> If you really feel that strongly about not using free software, I
> suggest you stop using the internet.

The Internet is NOT "free" (unless you use a so-called "free" ISP -- and
even then it is not "free". Someone, somewhere along the line pays for the
services you receive, whether it is you paying for an ISP, or the so-called
"free" ISPs themselves, or the taxpayers, through our taxes.

Someone pays for the miles of cable, or the satellites used to route the
internation traffic.

I don't have "free" access to the Internet. I pay for it, just as I pay for
the software I need to protect me from the hackers on the so-called "free"
Internet.

The only people I know of who use the Internet for "free" are hackers. Even
then, the service they steal from you and I is not "free", since you or I
payed for it before they stole it.

If you are a hacker, you most probably are a thief -- as much a thief as the
low-lives who break into houses and steal televisions
--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in message
news:camaf2$5gg$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
> Even with a Free ISP in the UK at least, one pays for the calls and a
> percentage of the call charge is credited to the ISP running the line.
> You really do need to pay attention. I can see why you have problems
> with Linux as reading and absorbing information is really not your
> forte.
>
> I pay for my DSL Internet access just like everyone else.
> Your beef was about free open source software being badly written and
> clunky.

No, my beef is NOT about Open Source software: It is about the supposition
that so-called "free" software is more to be desired, or better, than
software for which we pay.


> I have pointed out to you before that the Internet is made up of many
> applications such as Sendmail, Apache, Procmail and Linux which are
> all Open source. Therefore if you hate free software so much you
> should stay off the Internet.
>
> You are Tracker and I claim my 500 pounds.
I am NOT Tracker (whoever that is). Claim your 500 pounds on someone else.

> If you are stupid and rich enough to pay for something out of principle
when a free alternative
> is available, then you can afford to pay me :-)
Why do you assume that one must be "stupid" if one pays for his software?
Millions upon millions pay for their software. Are they all "stupid"?
Also, why do you assume that I am rich? I am most definitely NOT rich,
since I live on a government pension.

Nevertheless, I am able to pay for my software, because I would rather pay
for my software than spend my money on drink, tobacco, drugs, and women.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:10ctv1itjbsoe5f@corp.supernews.com...
> "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in message
> news:camaf2$5gg$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
> > Even with a Free ISP in the UK at least, one pays for the calls and a
> > percentage of the call charge is credited to the ISP running the line.
> > You really do need to pay attention. I can see why you have problems
> > with Linux as reading and absorbing information is really not your
> > forte.
> >
> > I pay for my DSL Internet access just like everyone else.
> > Your beef was about free open source software being badly written and
> > clunky.
>
> No, my beef is NOT about Open Source software: It is about the supposition
> that so-called "free" software is more to be desired, or better, than
> software for which we pay.

And until you actually try to use Open Source software it will remain a
supposition. I can tell you having used both paid for and Open Source
applications that the paid for option is not always the right option and
neither is the Open Source one. The correct solution is the right package
for the job. I'm so glad I don't suffer from your blinkered attitude.

>
> > I have pointed out to you before that the Internet is made up of many
> > applications such as Sendmail, Apache, Procmail and Linux which are
> > all Open source. Therefore if you hate free software so much you
> > should stay off the Internet.
> >
> > You are Tracker and I claim my 500 pounds.
> I am NOT Tracker (whoever that is). Claim your 500 pounds on someone
else.

Your new round here? :-)

> > If you are stupid and rich enough to pay for something out of principle
> when a free alternative
> > is available, then you can afford to pay me :-)
> Why do you assume that one must be "stupid" if one pays for his software?

I assume someone who insists on paying for everything to be either rich or
stupid. Yup.

> Millions upon millions pay for their software. Are they all "stupid"?

No.

> Also, why do you assume that I am rich? I am most definitely NOT rich,
> since I live on a government pension.

Well I assumed that if you insisted on paying for software out of principle
your were either rich or daft. Thanks for clarifying that one.

> Nevertheless, I am able to pay for my software, because I would rather pay
> for my software than spend my money on drink, tobacco, drugs, and women.

So given the choice of paying for a taxi or me giving you a lift in my Merc
you would rather stick your hand in your pocket????

You are a strange person.

Like I said, you can't stand by your principle because like it or not your
ARE using free software whenever you use the Internet so your argument just
doesn't hold water. If you feel that strongly may I suggest you donate to
the Sendmail & Apache projects?

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"SysAdm" <willgeeza@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:a23233af.0406151621.41f83421@posting.google.com
> "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> made me
> spit my tea out when he wrote in message
> news:<10csik4p90qrda6@corp.supernews.com>...
>> "Jeffrey Schwartz" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
>> news:bokrc092hfiq698nbelo9q06ivppq6qm2j@4ax.com
>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:44:25 -0700, "Donald McDaniel"
>>> <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>>
>>
>> NO, I am saying that what you think is FREE (as in "free software" )
>> is not free. I say that someone somewhere down the line PAYS for
>> it. If not you, then the ones who created it, or the ones who
>> distribute it. I am encouraging people to PURCHASE their firewall.
>> If they do, they will get a BETTER product, and the ones who created
>> it will be able to feed their children and pay their bills.
> <SNIP>
>
> So Don, could you enlighten us all as to the purpose of OpenSource ?
>
> Are you saying that if I choose to run IPTables instead of some paid
> for FW that somehow I am a bad person ?
>
> I'd love to know.
>
> SysAdm

NO, I am saying that if you choose to pay for your software, you are not a
stupid or bad person, as some in this thread would have you believe.

For some reason or another, many users have decided that so-called "free"
software is more to be desired than software you pay for. This is why so
many millions of people use P2P networks to download "free" software. I
submit that the REAL reason they download so-called "free" software is
because they are GREEDY.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in message
news:caouib$fhk$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
> "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in
> message news:10cva4clbs075d1@corp.supernews.com...
>> "SysAdm" <willgeeza@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>> news:a23233af.0406151621.41f83421@posting.google.com
>>> "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> made me
>>> spit my tea out when he wrote in message
>>> news:<10csik4p90qrda6@corp.supernews.com>...
>>>> "Jeffrey Schwartz" <onlyjunkmail@email.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:bokrc092hfiq698nbelo9q06ivppq6qm2j@4ax.com
>>>>> On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:44:25 -0700, "Donald McDaniel"
>>>>> <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> NO, I am saying that what you think is FREE (as in "free
>>>> software" ) is not free. I say that someone somewhere down the
>>>> line PAYS for it. If not you, then the ones who created it, or
>>>> the ones who distribute it. I am encouraging people to PURCHASE
>>>> their firewall. If they do, they will get a BETTER product, and
>>>> the ones who created it will be able to feed their children and
>>>> pay their bills.
>>> <SNIP>
>>>
>>> So Don, could you enlighten us all as to the purpose of OpenSource ?
>>>
>>> Are you saying that if I choose to run IPTables instead of some paid
>>> for FW that somehow I am a bad person ?
>>>
>>> I'd love to know.
>>>
>>> SysAdm
>>
>> NO, I am saying that if you choose to pay for your software, you are
>> not a stupid or bad person, as some in this thread would have you
>> believe.
>
> The only person saying that is you by extrapolating your own meanings
> from what people are actually saying
>
>> For some reason or another, many users have decided that so-called
>> "free" software is more to be desired than software you pay for.
>> This is why so many millions of people use P2P networks to download
>> "free" software. I submit that the REAL reason they download
>> so-called "free" software is because they are GREEDY.
>
> You just don't get it do you? You are now confusing Open Source, free
> and pirated software.
>
> The reason people use free software is because smart companies
> realise that some people don't need all the functions of a full
> product but understand that by providing a free sample shifts more
> paid for product.
>
> Its a bit like the free shampoo samples that are attached to the
> pages of magazines. But then I suppose you would refuse to use them
> and go out and buy a full retail bottle. ROFL!

You simply are unable to garner information from posts, dude. Nowhere have
I said using so-called "free" software is a bad thing. What I HAVE been
saying is this: There is no particular virtue in using so-called "free"
software over using software you pay for. In fact, I say that those who
prefer to use so-called "free" software rather than pay for it are greedy
dogs. Have fewer beers this week, and pay $19.95 for a firewall (this is
what I paid for Outpost Pro, because Agnitum offers a cheap upgrade to those
users who already have other licensed firewall products. Symantec also
offers such upgrades. Think of it: don't buy 5 beers at the local pub, and
you will be able to pay for it.

Here is one reason I would rather pay for my software than use so-called
"free" versions: ZoneAlarm (free version) pops up a notification on EVERY
event, which you must dismiss before you can do ANYTHING else on your
desktop, while ZoneAlarm Pro allows you to decide on the frequency of these
notifications. I prefer to have control over what appears on my desktop,
rather than live at the mercy of arbitrary popups constantly appearing.

Most so-called "free" software is much like ZoneAlarm (free). You always
pay for your software in some way. There's no such thing as a free lunch.

I would never use free shampoo samples unless I had no other shampoo. Such
samples are never enough to do a proper job, anyway.

So-called "free" software has a good application: checking out the
effectiveness of a particular program for my particular needs. Many times,
however, so-called "free" software is crippled, and a trial cannot truly
gauge the effectiveness of the software.

I reiterate: The majority of those who use so-called "free" software
instead of paying for it are greedy dogs.

--
Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
news:10cmj84qde8blef@corp.supernews.com...
> "Lars M. Hansen" <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote in message
> news:6jgmc0pse4e8ra3ktktp6ah1qjgek03s99@4ax.com
> > On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:21:05 +0200, ]-[ans spoketh
> >
> >> At the moment I'm using NIS 2004 Pro. To my opinion it's using to
> >> much resources during surfing the internet. I want to give another
> >> firewall a try.
>
> >>
> >> Although I know that firewalling is very much subject to personal
> >> preferences, I want to ask: What is the best software firewall......
> >> _______________________
> >> ]-[ans
> >
> > There is no "best" firewall.
> >
> > The best firewall is the one you are most familiar with. There's
> > plenty of free options out there, including ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio
> > and Outpost.
> >
> > It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall. If you opt
> > to remove it, you should also consider getting a new anti-virus
> > solution.
> >
> > Lars M. Hansen
> > www.hansenonline.net
> > Remove "bad" from my e-mail address to contact me.
> > "If you try to fail, and succeed, which have you done?"
>
> Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free software?
> That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for their work, they
> do a much better job.
>
> PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!
>
> As the Dutch are fond of saying, "There's no such thing as a free lunch."
>
> --
> Donald L McDaniel
> Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
> so that all may be informed.
> Remove the obvious to reply by email.
> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

There is a saying that goes:- "People who live in glass houses should not
throw stones"

http://groups.google.co.uk/groups? [...] com&rnum=2


Tut tut tut.... You have been found out! ROFL!

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

"Chuck" <none@example.net> wrote in message
news:ba31d0hue212f2eni4nrhsuc57ai312dlv@4ax.com
> On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 18:30:00 +0100, "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>> "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in
>> message news:10cmj84qde8blef@corp.supernews.com...
>
> <SNIP>
>
>>> Why does everyone always assume that the best software is free
>>> software? That is crock of horse hockey. When people get paid for
>>> their work, they do a much better job.
>>>
>>> PAY FOR YOUR SOFTWARE, you GREEDY BIRD!!!
>>>
>>> As the Dutch are fond of saying, "There's no such thing as a free
>>> lunch."
>>>
>>> --
>>> Donald L McDaniel
>>> Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
>>> so that all may be informed.
>>> Remove the obvious to reply by email.
>>> +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
>>
>> There is a saying that goes:- "People who live in glass houses
>> should not throw stones"
>>
>> http://groups.google.co.uk/groups? [...] com&rnum=2
>>
>>
>> Tut tut tut.... You have been found out! ROFL!
>
> Mike,
>
> Nice one. Hehehe.
>
> I wonder if Donald even DONATES to Tom Bates for providing the
> website "Tom's Gravity Pages", and instructions.
>
> Cheers,
> Chuck
> Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

I am not against using so-called "free" software. My beef is with those who
claim that a free software product is somehow better, or more to be desired,
as if those who pay for their software are somehow stupid or foolish, as
some in this thread would have you believe.

Currently, I do not use Gravity, as you can easily demonstrate by looking at
the header of this article. I have not used it for months. In fact, I have
bought several newsreaders in the last few years. If Gravity were still
under development by Microplanet, I would gladly pay for a license, because
Gravity is a superior product, well worth a license fee.

Your evil mind tells on you, stud. You probably get all your software from
some P2P network. You are welcome to it, along with the viruses and hackers
associated with P2P networks.

My house is not so glassy as you would try to make it.
Stop stealing other's work, and start paying for your software, you greedy
cow.

--

Donald L McDaniel
Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
so that all may be informed.
Remove the obvious to reply by email.
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <10d1vp5teabj845@corp.supernews.com>,
orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com says...
> If Gravity were still
> under development by Microplanet, I would gladly pay for a license, because
> Gravity is a superior product, well worth a license fee.

I purchased Gravity when it first came out - still use it now. It's the
best news reader I've used since the early 80's.

--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 07:59:29 +0100, Alastair Smeaton
<smeaton@dsl.pipex.com> wrote:


>
>This is why I sometimes get fed up with the occasional "don't mention
>payware at all in your posts" people - but equally, your view seems to
>be anyone using freeware is a thief - begs the question then - why are
>you here in this group ?
>
>HTH

oops - apologies for this last element- I post also to
alt.comp.freeware and got confused :-)

While I still disagree with your views on freeware, of course it is
appropriate that you post to a firewall group with your opinion -
sorry
--

Alastair Smeaton

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Thu, 17 Jun 2004 09:05:25 +0100, "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote:

>"Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
>news:10d1vp5teabj845@corp.supernews.com...

<SNIP>

>> I am not against using so-called "free" software. My beef is with those
>who
>> claim that a free software product is somehow better, or more to be
>desired,
>> as if those who pay for their software are somehow stupid or foolish, as
>> some in this thread would have you believe.
>>
>> Currently, I do not use Gravity, as you can easily demonstrate by looking
>at
>> the header of this article. I have not used it for months. In fact, I
>have
>> bought several newsreaders in the last few years. If Gravity were still
>> under development by Microplanet, I would gladly pay for a license,
>because
>> Gravity is a superior product, well worth a license fee.
>
>But, in that article you enthusiasticly support and encourage the use of
>free software which is exactly what you are acusing people in this group of
>doing and calling them greedy dogs! You came trolling in here taking your
>high and mighty high ground and you have been found out.
>
>> Your evil mind tells on you, stud. You probably get all your software
>from
>> some P2P network. You are welcome to it, along with the viruses and
>hackers
>> associated with P2P networks.
>
>Are you sure you don't know T******??

Please don't speak the name of the undead.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:17:12 -0700, "Donald McDaniel"
<orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote:

<SNIP>

>I am not against using so-called "free" software. My beef is with those who
>claim that a free software product is somehow better, or more to be desired,
>as if those who pay for their software are somehow stupid or foolish, as
>some in this thread would have you believe.
>
>Currently, I do not use Gravity, as you can easily demonstrate by looking at
>the header of this article. I have not used it for months. In fact, I have
>bought several newsreaders in the last few years. If Gravity were still
>under development by Microplanet, I would gladly pay for a license, because
>Gravity is a superior product, well worth a license fee.
>
>Your evil mind tells on you, stud. You probably get all your software from
>some P2P network. You are welcome to it, along with the viruses and hackers
>associated with P2P networks.
>
>My house is not so glassy as you would try to make it.
>Stop stealing other's work, and start paying for your software, you greedy
>cow.

Funny. When you recommended Gravity, it was freeware then. Apparently you
thought it was better, or you wouldn't have recommended it. Unless you're a
hypocrite.

I, personally, use a variety of software. Some paid for, some shareware, some
freeware. One product, which is the best I have found in its class, is freeware
- and the writer of it declines to charge.

Some software is freeware because its providers use it to advertise a more
complete alternate product, which has features I don't need.

I install Zone Alarm Free on computers that don't need the features of Zone
Alarm Pro - in those cases, ZAF IS better than ZAP. I use Zone Alarm Pro (paid)
on others. In all possible cases, I install a NAT router for perimeter
protection.

I don't use Norton Internet Security cause it's bloatware - and that I don't
need. But I do have Norton Antivirus (paid) because it has the best features
IMHO of any antivirus (well did 2 years ago when I last evaluated alternates).

I have other security products in addition to NAV. I use them cause they are
the best in their class. Most are freeware.

Do you send donations for all the free software you use, or not use it at all?
Even if it leaves you (and the rest of us) unprotected? I'd bet the author of
Spybot S&D would rather you use his product, without paying for it, then not use
it at all. There are a lot of folks who DON'T use SSD - some of them write in
for help complaining of spyware infections.

And what do you do with the free bottles of shampoo? Do you throw them out?
More fool you.

Cheers,
Chuck
Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.

Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

In article <di54d05612v4u668l5d7kgn3ak4nmfbbh4@4ax.com>,
none@example.net says...
> Folks who write what I want get my business.

So, unless you change your needs or specification you don't buy any
software? I'm quite sure that there isn't a vendor / OS application out
there that specifically meets all your needs without you first saying
"Oh, I like that additional feature in this Open Source product (or
other product)" - meaning that unless you write it for yourself or have
someone write it for you, you are always going to have to compromise on
what you want vs what you get. To say otherwise means you don't really
understand what you said above.



--
--
spamfree999@rrohio.com
(Remove 999 to reply to me)