[KLUG Members] Re: Are "we" sure that SmoothWall is "good"????? -- Check out IPCop (and end all Morrell commentary)

[Bryan J. Smith]

Michael Morrett wrote:
> Attached is just one scary Email I have received from the
> SmoothWall users Email list.

Remember, just because you don't agree with the developer of a GPL
product (although that is getting questionable in the case of
SmoothWall), doesn't mean the entire product stinks.  SmoothWall is
one of those products that gets continued, mindless questions that
are answered in the FAQ asked 100 times a day on the support list. 
Worse yet, users are regularly abusive and expect SmoothWall to
support every poorly designed Windows application.  And there are a
few "personal" issues which has "affected" Mr. Morrell as well.

Now I'm not saying this "excuses" Mr. Morrell, but after several
years of it, I believe it has "affected" him quite "negatively." 
There is one way to "remove" this "issue" ...

Hence why IPCop now exists.

FYI, for IPCop (and potential IPCop) users:

I think the most _professional_ thing you can do is just _ignore_
Mr. Morrell and look at IPCop.  IPCop benefits from Mr. Morrell's
(among others') previous work, but makes Mr. Morrell a "non-issue." 
Don't involve him by making any comments.  That defeats the purpose
of the fork.

-- Bryan

P.S.  Even the beta 0.1.0 IPCop release is SmoothWall 0.9.9 with
updates and a few enhancements (like Ext3).  I recommend you use it
instead of SmoothWall.

-- 
Bryan J. Smith, Engineer        mailto:b.j.smith@ieee.org   
AbsoluteValue Systems, Inc.     http://www.linux-wlan.org
SmithConcepts, Inc.          http://www.SmithConcepts.com