There are a few companies that have a policy of not using *any* opensource
software. In other words, if its got a GPL or a BSD licence,its totally taboo
to use it on any company owned equipment.
Marketing particularly likes it when proprietary equipment is used,because they
can say "we use x as our firewall" and be almostinstantly understood, however
if they say "we have ___ open-sourcefirewall" they may faced with a bunch of
technical questions thatthey may not be able to answer.
Also, I've noticed that there seems to be that stigma associated
withopen-source software; That it is often more unreliable and buggycompared
to proprietary software (M$ has been pretty successful inpromoting this idea to
non-tech or low-tech people) and that it iscomplicated to maintain (this can be
a valid point since there is alot less formal education offered in the use of
*nix based firewallequipment as compared to say, Cisco firewall equipment).
my $0.02
On 6/9/05, Joseph (Joe) Lynn <Joe.Lynn@tiniusolsen.co.uk> wrote:> > > > Hi
all, > > > > Sorry everyone, forgive my ignorance, but I'm still a bit
confused on these> issues – I don't understand why anyone would buy a firewall
that has a cost> associated with it rather than just taking a bog standard pc
and installing> an open source firewall on it, such as IPCop or OpenBSD PF. > >
> > From the responses to my post about IPCop and the messages about OpenBSD,
it> looks like these options are as secure as you're going to get. > > > >
Perhaps it might be easier to configure proprietary firewalls, and they> might
give better logging and analysis options, but presumably, certainly> with
IPCop, and I would assume, with OpenBSD, you can find adequate Open> Source
options that will provide any of the functions that the other> firewalls do
(with the exception of ISA2004, which sounds like it works with> the
applications rather than the packets….) – like e.g. snort. > > > > Do people
just buy firewalls because they can't be bothered to learn to set> up Open
Source systems, or is there more to this that I'm missing? > > > > Many
thanks, > > > > Joe > > > >
-- Patricia Swarbrick
* The problem with quick and dirty is the dirty is remembered longafter the
quick is forgotten *
