From: Hairy One Kenobi (abuse_at_[127.0.0.1)
Date: Wed, 16 Jun 2004 08:33:44 +0100
"Colonel Flagg" <colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org> wrote in
> In article <MPG.email@example.com>,
> firstname.lastname@example.org says...
> > In article <MPG.email@example.com>,
> > colonel_flagg@NOSOUPFORJ00internetwarzone.org says...
> > > the key word is "flexible", a cisco _anything_ cannot do _everything_
> > > linux box can do....
> the only thing they offer is routing and firewalling (and a couple with
> IDS). a *nix firewall can offer that and just about anything else you
> can imagine.
A better argument (based on the assumption that running anything other than
firewall software on a firewall is A Bad Idea(tm)), is that a generic
*nix box can be more versatile, by including things like DMZ routing
Personally, I prefer two hardware routers, but each to their own.. in my
case, I found it less trouble (and taking up less power & space) than my
original Linux-based jobbies. Oh, and the FTP configuration was a complete
bitch to get working, back in 1999 or so. The Netgear worked out-of-the-box.
-- A thoroughly neutral Hairy One Kenobi Disclaimer: the opinions expressed in this opinion do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the highly-opinionated person expressing the opinion in the first place. So there!  i.e. a PC/pizza style of box running *nix, as opposed to a Zyxel hardware firewall running *nix under-the-bonnet [hood]  While it's unlikely that my Zyxel-based Netgear router or a generic *nix router would be compromised, a three-NIC ITX-based router - if compromised - would open up both the "DMZ" and the private LAN.  I've an old Sparc Ultra that might be available to a good home.. at the moment, it's just taking up space.