Re: Kerio PF 4.2
From: Alastair Smeaton (smeaton_at_dsl.pipex.com)
Date: 08/30/03
- Next message: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Previous message: Andrew Rossmann: "Re: hehgan.exe"
- In reply to: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Reply: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Sat, 30 Aug 2003 14:50:14 +0100
On Sat, 30 Aug 2003 08:01:04 -0400, "\"Crash\" Dummy"
<dvader@deathstar.mil> wrote:
>>I think I will stick with 2.1.5 until the new version 4 (what happened to
>>v3?) has been fully tested by the general public.
>>I have also seen numerous posts abot how bad v4 is from the czeck site
>
>I think I will stick with 2.1.5 even when the bugs are out of version 4. Version
>4 (and the aborted V3) abandons the small footprint, basic Tiny/Kerio model in
>favor of doitall bloatware, just like everybody else. Tiny and later Kerio
>became popular because they were different from ZA, NPF, and the like, not
>because they mimicked them.
I wish I could stick with 2.15 - tried it 3 times, over a long period,
but I am one of the very few XP users for whom it causes a BSOD.
Documented, but no solution as far as I know :-(
2.15 is clearly the best free firewall - small, easy to use, and works
- even does ICS.
-- Alastair Smeaton
- Next message: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Previous message: Andrew Rossmann: "Re: hehgan.exe"
- In reply to: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Next in thread: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Reply: \: "Re: Kerio PF 4.2"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]