Lopaka,
UDAMan, Bro!
No. I do not wish to know where you learn all this stuff?
Happy that you did it! Very nice reads.
Best,
Duncan
On 05/10/2010 18:32, Robert Martin Jr. wrote:
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?
