[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.60.0406291552590.23549@catbert.rellim.com>
From: gem at rellim.com (Gary E. Miller)
Subject: PIX vs CheckPoint; IMHO Netscreen is far
superior
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
Yo Edward!
On Tue, 29 Jun 2004, Edward W. Ray wrote:
> If your choices are only checkpoint or PIX, I would choose Checkpoint. IMHO
> it is more reliable. But if you really want a networking company that is
> not a marketing company, check out Juniper/Netscreen Firewalls,
> http://www.netscreen.com
You gotta be more specific than FW-1. FW-1 can run over a large number
of OS. You can get FW-1 for WinNT, Solaris, Linux, BSD . Each has the
strengths and weaknesses of the underlying OS. Also FW-1 can run on a
large number of hardware platforms, PCI, Compact-PCI, Sparc, etc. Each
has it's strengths and weaknesses.
You can eliminate the WinNT versions. Who wants to reboot their firewall
daily? I prefer the PCI hardware, when a system goes down it is nice to
be able to run to a local PC store for spare parts instead of waiting for
overnight priority service.
RGDS
GARY
- ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary E. Miller Rellim 20340 Empire Blvd, Suite E-3, Bend, OR 97701
gem@...lim.com Tel:+1(541)382-8588 Fax: +1(541)382-8676
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.2.3 (GNU/Linux)
iD8DBQFA4fRE8KZibdeR3qURAtTkAKDYZhhv9enMZm0bbOTQYW6AzICDeQCeLdo+
/o1oIOIY+TKdh07bJF+odZM=
=AxK3
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Powered by blists - more mailing lists