Re: Cisco Pix?
From: paul blitz (paul.blitz_at_centia.co.uk)
Date: 09/01/04
- Next message: CZ: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Previous message: xmp: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- In reply to: xmp: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Next in thread: Moe Trin: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Reply: Moe Trin: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]
Date: Wed, 1 Sep 2004 13:52:35 +0100
Ho ho!
Whether you like Mickeysoft or loathe them, it is a fact that the vast
majority of users interect with their computer via a GUI, and 99% of them
can not cope with a CLI.
Paul
"xmp" <xmp@example.com> wrote in message
news:YOhZc.58$N4.16@newsread3.news.pas.earthlink.net...
> paul blitz wrote:
>
> > The Pix PDM does indeed make life a LOT easier... that doesn't mean it's
> > actually easy to use. (Mind you, I'd rate my USR 9003 adsl
router/firewall
> > as being about 20 times worse!)
> >
> > The problem is that Cisco have been around for a while, and therefore
(as
> > far as they are concerned) the way THEY do it must be the best way.
Sadly,
> > in this modern world of easy-to-use GUIs, they are a LONG WAY behind.
>
> What's a GUI? My shell is cygwin.bat with GNU screen.
>
> michael
- Next message: CZ: "Re: Is a s/w firewall needed with NAT?"
- Previous message: xmp: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- In reply to: xmp: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Next in thread: Moe Trin: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Reply: Moe Trin: "Re: Cisco Pix?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ] [ subject ] [ author ] [ attachment ]