Posted by: Anonymous Coward
on March 17, 2005 02:54 AM
I never said that Smoothwall is an "incomplete" firewall because of the command line. What I did say was it is not "fully-featured". Let me explain what I meant.
Smoothwall targets the less technically inclined user, who may have no idea of iptables and/or rules for iptables. In such a scenario, the developers of Smoothwall should have made it easier to add your own custom rules for the firewall. Also, Smoothwall does not have traffic shaping. IpCop, another free firewall, does implement these two features.
You seem to be someone who loves the CLI. Well, that's great, and I totally agree with you that nothing comes close to the CLI for sheer raw power. But do keep in mind that while experienced sysadmins like you revel in the power of the CLI, a first time user will have no clue of what to do when faced with a $ prompt (or a # promt, for that matter).
So, let me reiterate. Having to do some things through a CLI does NOT make Smoothwall "incomplete". It simply means that the developers could possibly add some features in the next version, so that even people who cannot for the life of them make rules in Iptables can use it.
As for your sarcastic comments about "only SonicWalls and other "home broadband" grade of firewalls that use a Web browser for *everything* are "complete" firewalls.", they don't need any answering, since the basic premise you started from is incorrect.