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
50 answers Last reply
More about firewall
  1. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    ]-[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
  2. 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?"
  3. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  4. 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
  5. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    ]-[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!


    > 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.


    Purl Gurl
  6. 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
  7. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    ]-[ans wrote:

    > Purl Gurl wrote:
    > > ]-[ans wrote:
    > > > Purl Gurl wrote:
    > > > > ]-[ans wrote:

    ]-snipped-[

    > > 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 boot, therefore I am."
    - HAL


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

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:54:19 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
    <badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:

    > 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.

    I fully agree with that. But still, I notice that it considerably
    slows down my connection surfing the internet due to large resource
    consumption. That's why I would like to have some feedback from users
    with other firewall experiences. The two things though I like about
    NIS is the very well working options ad-blocking and password manager.

    > If you opt to remove it, you should also consider getting a new
    > anti-virus solution.

    Of couse.....

    >
    > 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?"

    ______________________________________________________________________
    ]-[ans
  9. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 20:20:38 +0200, "]-[ans" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote:

    >On Sat, 12 Jun 2004 17:54:19 GMT, Lars M. Hansen
    ><badnews@hansenonline.net> wrote:

    <SNIP>

    >> It should be noted that NIS is more than just a firewall.
    >
    >I fully agree with that. But still, I notice that it considerably
    >slows down my connection surfing the internet due to large resource
    >consumption. That's why I would like to have some feedback from users
    >with other firewall experiences. The two things though I like about
    >NIS is the very well working options ad-blocking and password manager.
    >
    >> If you opt to remove it, you should also consider getting a new
    >> anti-virus solution.
    >
    >Of couse.....
    >
    >>
    >> 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?"
    >
    >______________________________________________________________________
    >]-[ans

    ]-[ans,

    One of the reasons why NIS (and ZA has been noted to also) uses resources is
    from having to identify, resolve, and log the trash traffic from thousands of
    infected computers on the internet, some of which generate probes that hit your
    LAN.

    Protect yourself behind a hardware firewall (NAT router), and all that trash
    gets blocked by the router. Your computer will run cleaner, even with NIS (or
    ZA) running, it will do less work. And it will be safer from zero-day exploits,
    which are going to become more common.

    With a NAT router costing about as much as one or two months internet fees, you
    can't afford not to use one.

    Cheers,
    Chuck
    Paranoia comes from experience - and is not necessarily a bad thing.
  10. 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?"
  11. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <6jgmc0pse4e8ra3ktktp6ah1qjgek03s99@4ax.com>, badnews@hansenonline.net says...
    > 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?"
    >
    There's plenty
    of free options out there, including Sygate, ZoneAlarm, Tiny, Kerio
    and Outpost.
  12. 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
  13. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    In article <jbbnc0ho8n7tio5tp27obfh42r8hg673sl@4ax.com>,
    badnews@hansenonline.net says...
    > Companies can offer free software because it is a great way to advertise
    > their products. People download and use their free products, and then
    > decide the need the advanced features of the full products. Essentially,
    > free advertising. Those who doesn't upgrade to the pay-for full version
    > probably wouldn't have paid for any such product anyway.

    I agree with Lars - that's the same tactic that Apple used to almost get
    the Apple PC into the homes and business ahead of the IBM type PC.

    People that use a free product know it's limited, but those people act
    as mini-advertisers for others and the end result is that more people
    purchase their pay products because of it.


    --
    --
    spamfree999@rrohio.com
    (Remove 999 to reply to me)
  14. 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.
  15. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "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.

    By the way, ZoneAlarm's main version, ZA Pro, includes at least ONE feature
    which is not in the so-called "free" version, and which home users need VERY
    BADLY -- Popup and content blocking.

    How can you say that a crippled, so-called "free" version is the "right tool
    for the job?".

    ZoneLabs offers a "free" version for ONE REASON: They hope that those who
    use it will upgrade to the PAID version once they see the benefits. Of
    course, the creators of ZoneLabs are operating on the assumption that those
    who use the free version are actually human beings, and will respond
    positively to their largesse. The sad thing is, ZoneLabs doesn't realize
    that a large part of the users of the free version are just greedy dogs, who
    cannot respond to human kindness.

    --
    Donald L McDaniel
    Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
    so that all may be informed.
    Remove the obvious to reply by email.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  16. 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.
  17. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

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

    >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.

    Why have a computer?
    Regards Buddy B
  18. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    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)
  19. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  20. 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.
  21. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "]-[ans" <nomail@nomail.com> wrote in
    news:1o7mc0h9nhu4ot738eo8ql8lbas4evjk6h@4ax.com:

    > 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

    Cisco PIX 501 <G>
    And then Run Ad-Aware and Spybot. Use the Freesurfer 2K Popup blocker in
    strict mode.
  22. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    ]-[ans wrote:

    > 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

    Best software firewall is an oxymoron. Buy a hardware firewall.


    --
    T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T.
    Sean Weintz
    This post may be copied freely without the express permission of T. Sean
    Weintz.
    T. Sean Weintz could care less. T. Sean Weintz does however reserve all
    rights.
    T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T. Sean Weintz - T.
    Sean Weintz
  23. 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?"
  24. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Mon, 14 Jun 2004 06:00:59 -0700, "Donald McDaniel"
    <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote:

    >
    >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).

    I'm confused on how this hole discussion got started, the original
    post was from somebody who is having problems with NIS (a program that
    he paid for) that he needs to protect Windows (also a program that he
    paid for).

    It would seem that the s/w that you pay for is the ones that are
    "clunky and buggy) or he wouldn't have posted his question in the
    first place.

    Jeff
  25. 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.
  26. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  27. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
    news:10csghapc3mjg89@corp.supernews.com...
    > "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.

    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.


    > 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.

    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.
    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.

    >
    > 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

    You are Tracker and I claim my 500 pounds. 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 :-)
  28. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  29. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Tue, 15 Jun 2004 06:40:04 -0700, Donald McDaniel spoketh


    >
    >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.
    >

    Well, since I'm the one who made the initial post to which you so
    vehemently objects, perhaps I should emphasize that I never claimed any
    software firewall was better or worse than any other (free or
    otherwise). I merely suggested trying other options, some of which have
    been reported having less of a load on most computers.

    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  30. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "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
  31. 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?
  32. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  33. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "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!
  34. 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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  35. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
    news:10d0oube2j2gk88@corp.supernews.com...
    > "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.

    <SIGH>
  36. 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?q=Donald+L+McDaniel+free&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18c03d5d27c0ecc4989681%40news.cablespeed.com&rnum=2


    Tut tut tut.... You have been found out! ROFL!
  37. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    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?q=Donald+L+McDaniel+free&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18c03d5d27c0ecc4989681%40news.cablespeed.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.
  38. 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?q=Donald+L+McDaniel+free&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18c03d5d27c0ecc4989681%40news.cablespeed.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.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  39. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in message
    news:capuu8$3c9$1@thorium.cix.co.uk
    > "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in
    > message news:10d0oube2j2gk88@corp.supernews.com...
    >> "Mike" <nospam@notherematey.com> wrote in message
    >> news:caouib$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.
    >
    > <SIGH>

    Why don't you go around dumpster-diving for your shampoo, since you will get
    it "free", if you love "free" so much. Of course, you will probably also
    get scabies or even leprosy for your trouble, and you will gain a heavy
    odor.

    In the mean time, I will pay for my software when I can afford to. I have
    every right to do this. I am NOT stupid, as one person in this thread
    intimates. I also have a clear conscience, because I don't steal my
    software off P2P networks. Intimating that I am stupid because I pay for my
    software when able to is the same thing as claiming that a man is stupid to
    pay his rent, or buy an automobile. Shucks, you guys like "free" so much,
    why not become squatters, and deceive yourselves into thinking that you are
    taking over an abandoned building somewhere, instead of paying for an
    airconditioned apartment in a nice building.

    If you are going to use so-called "free" software, go right ahead. There is
    nothing wrong with looking for a bargain. However, remember that you will
    pay for it in the end, not matter how "free" you think it is. But DON'T
    impugn the good names of those who prefer to pay for it by claiming they are
    stupid if they do.

    --
    Donald L McDaniel
    Post all replies to the Newsgroup,
    so that all may be informed.
    Remove the obvious to reply by email.
    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
  40. 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)
  41. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Wed, 16 Jun 2004 19:40:53 -0700, "Donald McDaniel"
    <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote:


    >
    >In the mean time, I will pay for my software when I can afford to. I have
    >every right to do this. I am NOT stupid, as one person in this thread
    >intimates. I also have a clear conscience, because I don't steal my
    >software off P2P networks. Intimating that I am stupid because I pay for my
    >software when able to is the same thing as claiming that a man is stupid to
    >pay his rent, or buy an automobile. Shucks, you guys like "free" so much,
    >why not become squatters, and deceive yourselves into thinking that you are
    >taking over an abandoned building somewhere, instead of paying for an
    >airconditioned apartment in a nice building.
    >

    I don't know who or what has rattled your cage, but please, do not
    equate freeware with illegally downloading using P2P networks.

    many freeware titles work very well, and suit the users needs as well
    as, or better than payware.

    I currently use spampal as a spam filter - freeware - and better than
    all the others I have tried, including payware, in terms of how I
    wish to use spam filters.

    In addition, some titles remain freeware for a couple of years - then
    go to shareware or payware - in effect, those who use it as freeware
    are the beta testers.

    Freeware is useful, a good concept, and well worth exploring - but by
    all means, everyone should use whatever they wish.

    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
    --

    Alastair Smeaton
  42. 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
  43. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    "Donald McDaniel" <orthocrossNOSPAMPLEASE@cablespeed.com> wrote in message
    news:10d1vp5teabj845@corp.supernews.com...
    > "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?q=Donald+L+McDaniel+free&hl=en&lr=&ie=UTF-8&selm=MPG.18c03d5d27c0ecc4989681%40news.cablespeed.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.

    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 Tracker??

    > 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.

    I've told you before but you just don't seem to be able to grasp it. I do
    pay for my software. I renew my Action pack subscription EVERY year. Yes, I
    pay for my software continuously, not just the once like you do.

    You have been caught out. A bigger person would have put their hand up and
    admitted it rather than using the lowest form of argument by name calling.

    Pathetic
  44. 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.
  45. 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.
  46. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    *PLONK*


    Lars M. Hansen
    http://www.hansenonline.net
    (replace 'badnews' with 'news' in e-mail address)
  47. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    <snip>

    lol...

    enough - he's turning into a troll. Just agree to disagree and let
    him be happy with his wacky notions.

    You get 'em all out here in space...

    SysAdm
  48. 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)
  49. Archived from groups: comp.security.firewalls (More info?)

    On Fri, 18 Jun 2004 02:44:35 GMT, Leythos <void@nowhere.com> wrote:

    >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.

    No, sometimes I don't get what I want. :(

    If a solution I want is provided by freeware, or paidware, that's what I use.
    And I don't penalise myself by using paidware, if a freeware solution is
    available.

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

Read More

Firewalls NIS Security Internet Networking