On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:11 PM, Vick Khera <[email protected]> wrote: > On Thu, Jun 3, 2010 at 3:06 PM, Ian Bowers <[email protected]> wrote: >> My comment on patching was more abstract than saying "Cisco is more of >> a fire and forget box than BSD". a BSD box, even as a network >> appliance, is going to have more services listening than a cisco >> router. Or at least that tends to be the case in practice. Most >> > > The stock freebsd install listens on basically nothing unless you tell > it to, including ssh. pfSense is not really a "BSD Box" either, and > is even more tightly configured. This argument is a big red herring. > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- > To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] > For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] > > Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org > >
Shrug. I'm not picking on pfsense, and I'm not picking on BSD. the "in practice" caveat is a big one since users tend to enable all kinds of features for all kinds of reasons. There's no red herring here. I do a lot of this sort of work and just wanted to hand out some opinions I had based on experience with this particular asker's issue. BSD is great, pfsense is great, all this is great on it's own without cisco. I was handing out a specific response to a specific situation, nothing more. Any abstractions you want to add to it aren't necessarily my opinion. -Ian --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: [email protected] For additional commands, e-mail: [email protected] Commercial support available - https://portal.pfsense.org
