On Fri, 14 Oct 2005, Orlando Andico wrote:
> well, it's the wrong example. a router is good for SOME things, a linux box > is good for other things. sure, a router with lots of RAM will cost a whole > lot more than a linux box, but no one in their right mind would run BGP in a > production environment on a linux box (other than as a route server, i > guess). i guess the bait to using a linux box router is that the linux administrator can self-service it? and parts come cheap and common (except the WAN card). whereas with a hw router, you rely very much on 3rd-party engineers and more money for the protection plan. > hahaha. you know, that's funny, because there was a similar thread a month > or two ago about using Linksys dedicated firewall appliances instead of > Linux for NAT. :D that's the "can the linux guy scale?" thread. cheers, pong _________________________________________________ Philippine Linux Users' Group (PLUG) Mailing List [email protected] (#PLUG @ irc.free.net.ph) Read the Guidelines: http://linux.org.ph/lists Searchable Archives: http://archives.free.net.ph
