Same here, I love it. In fact ClearOS looks a lot more polished than CC and still runs pretty decent on minimal hardware. For example, I upgraded my little embedded 4 port box (600MHz celeron) from CC4 to ClearOS. I've got 1GB ram. This little box runs a proxy server with content filtering (for the kids), AV scans all incoming traffic and downloads, runs a large blacklist, running Misterhouse (home automation with a X10 firecracker connected to internal serial - not visible on outside), also running two Quake 3 servers and a WorldofPadman server, and just installed VQmanager (Voip analysis) software and have all VOIP traffic mirrored to the box. Everything still running smoothly which is amazing to me since it's very low power hardware. I used a dremel to add a USB port to the enclosure and have USB sound card running the home automation announcements, etc.
lopaka I'm still very happy with clearos (was clark). I'm using it on a via epia dual gigabit board. Stable. Works fine. Sent via BlackBerry -----Original Message----- From: maccrawj <maccr...@gmail.com> Date: Mon, 10 May 2010 14:11:45 To: <hardware@hardwaregroup.com> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? Well for home use this sounds like overkill especially if it needs more than a little 12W embedded device to run. I do see where a larger setup could benefit from it, but that's apples to oranges. On 5/10/2010 6:41 AM, Greg Sevart wrote: > Yes. You can use pfSense as an access point I think, but that really isn't > its purpose. It is designed to be a firewall and/or router first and > foremost. If you did implement one, you'd probably want to take any existing > device that you have performing routing/firewall/NAT duties and disable > those functions. > > You could configure pfSense as a transparent firewall in front of or behind > your existing router, but that's honestly not going to provide a great deal > of value in most implementations. > >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:17 AM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? >> >> I see. >> >> Very interesting. >> >> But if I wanted a pfSense box, then that would make my router redundant. >> I would have to just use it as an AP right? >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com >> [mailto:hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Greg Sevart >> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 4:14 PM >> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? >> >> pfSense was forked from m0n0wall several years ago to provide expanded >> features not consistent with m0n0wall's minimalist approach suitable to >> smaller, embedded systems. It also uses the (IMO) more robust and less >> quirky BSD packet filter (pf) instead of ipfw. They offer a similar > interface and >> either one should be fairly familiar if you've used the other. >> >>> -----Original Message----- >>> From: hardware-boun...@hardwaregroup.com [mailto:hardware- >>> boun...@hardwaregroup.com] On Behalf Of Naushad, Zulfiqar >>> Sent: Monday, May 10, 2010 8:03 AM >>> To: hardware@hardwaregroup.com >>> Subject: Re: [H] 1000 Mbps vs 100 Mpbs???? >>> >>> What's better? pfSENSE or M0n0wall? >>> >>> >> >> > > > >
