Michael Leone on Thu, 22 Jun 2000 15:50:46 -0400 (EDT) |
> It's common sense in my eyes.. > > Here's what I'm picturing..: This is applicable mostly for offices with no IT dept, or for offices where the IT dept isn't skilled in Linux. If there is such a dept, and they do know what they're doing (i.e., the dept was the folks who set it up), then I would think that would dimish this particular concern greatly. > another reason: compare the meantime between failure of a cisco box and a PC Redundent systems. One of the folks on another mailing list I'm on runs an Internet cafe with a T1 line, using LRP on a 486 box. How much does a 486 with 32M RAM cost? Shoot, most places big enough to have an IT dept have 486s collecting dust in the closets. I know I have at least 8. And LRP has a failover option (I'm told). Having said that, I use a Cisco Pix, and wouldn't want to change. Personally, I feel that when you can afford it, and can convince the management (you'd be surprised at how many want that level of security, but don't want to pay the high prices. Or maybe you wouldn't be surprised), you should go with an established name brand. But my friend set up his on Linux, with a 2.0M SDSL line, for his company's needs (150 users or so, not all on the Interet). He's now working at a large stock firm, as an intrusion/detection specialist, so I'd feel secure that Joe locked his firewall down tight. :-) > what you do at home is one thing, but what you pull out of your butt when > a companies reputation is on the line its a whole other story -- > > nothing to do with IT manager -- has to do with running a production > 100% uptime network Not everyone can afford the Cisco line. A Linux firewall makes an attractive affordable alternative for those folks. ______________________________________________________________________ Philadelphia Linux Users Group - http://plug.nothinbut.net Announcements - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug-announce General Discussion - http://lists.nothinbut.net/mail/listinfo/plug
|
|