Yeah and you are a faggot and a crackhead too.


"Randy" wrote in message .. .
You are comparing old **** to state of the art equipment. I choose to use a
router because it's the best way to go. In my home I have 3 machines...not
18 as you do, but still, they are all networked through the router, which
does a wonderful job. I have one each:

AMD 2400XP+
1 gig ram 3200
Epox mainboard

AMD 2000XP+
1 gig ram 3200
Gigabyte mainboard

Intel 1.7 P4
768 megs sdram
Asus mainboard

I am not at loss for equipment or knowledge. I agree that at one time the
way to go was to use a PC as a router, but as you said, the new routers are
like cheap pc's with no keyboard or monitor. Just check the links I have
posted before you make rash judgements. I think, if you do enough reading,
that you will be impressed with the capabilities of the routers on the
market now.

Later

"sideband" wrote in message
om...
Ok, Randy.. Just keep deluding yourself. You don't know the
flexibility benefits you get from running a computer as a router,
because apparently you haven't ever run one. Whether it's from
laziness, lack of equipment, lack or knowledge, or lack of time, I
don't know, but it's really your loss.

-SSB

Randy wrote:

You are wrong. You have the same control you have with a box. You really
don't know much about the recent routers, do you? You have logging,
realtime
tracking, etc. Maybe you should step out of the '80's.



From: "sideband"
Subject: Who is?
Date: Sunday, October 12, 2003 9:05 PM

With a router, you're stuck with what ports the router decides you
should be allowed to open or close. You don't really get any realtime
monitoring tools, and you're caught within the constraints set by the
software writers who wrote the router's OS.

With a computer acting as a router, you can decide to run other
services, you get better logging (to track down people trying to hack
your system, etc), and you generally get better thruput. You can get
realtime tracking of packets going through your network, etc, etc,
etc, etc...

Need I say more?

-SSB

Randy wrote:


And the flexibility you touted is what? Also, it uses way more power
than
the router. Mine is powered by a wall-wart. Can you say the same for the
dinosaur?


"sideband" wrote in message
.com...


Guess that shows what you know about firewalling and networking. My
router is a 386SX16, 32M RAM with a pair of NICs, connected to a DSL
line, running NetBSD.. Not a good choice? I get over 100KByte/s
transfer rates through it. ::shrug::

But I probably don't know what I'm talking about, now do I?

-SSB

Randy wrote:




http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage....type=pr oduct

And not nearly as reliable as the $60 router listed in the link. Like
a

486


sx/dx machine is really flexible now days? Sheesh! Well, they do make

good


doorstops. Sure, IF you happen to have an old machine laying around,
and
have enough old ISA cards lying around, it's OK, but still not a good

choice


for broadband.




"sideband" wrote in message
gy.com...



The router is also a)more expensive and b)not nearly as flexible.

-SSB

Radioman wrote:




A cable/DSL router also does a good job of keeping the infidels
out.


or get an old 486 machine, with a floppy drive and cd drive (no
HD),
have the boot commands on the floppy and the OS (Linux) on the CD,

use


this as a firewall/router. no HD to hack/write to.



Routers require much less electricity to use than the boatanchor

method


above, and can handle more connections on the internal network.



And the router is faster. I had a unix box passing my packets before
I had the router. It's a night and day difference.