Talk:Smoothwall

Origins

The article reads as a little uncritical and gushing - wasn't there quite a lot of controversy over the 'business model' a few years back? (I use both smoothwall and ipcop by the way). Linuxlad 23:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I don't see where it reads as gushing, to me it seems to remain from a NPOV. However as far as the orgins go I'm not sure about that because I only started using smoothwall semi recently (for about 1 year) so I don't know much about the business model controversy, could you cite some examples with links SirGrant 23:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Try 'requires absolutely no knowledge...' 'has spread round the world... bringing awards and plaudits in its wake'. This is not the English of encyclopaedias I suggest. Bob aka Linuxlad

I do agree with you on those points, I'm going to fix some of those poines you made, if you could pull up some of the controversy over the business model we can add that as well SirGrant 00:04, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok I changed what I could, about the "requires absolutely no knowledge..." I do believe that portion is pretty NPoV though because I do believe it does require very little to no knowledge of linux to install and use. For example to install you essentially boot from CD and answer some questions, you don't have to use console or a command line interface so ultimatly a user without knowledge of linux is able to install and use it. Therefor I just simple changed it to requires little or no knowledge. I couldn't also find any awards but if someone can find them instead of saying awards and plaudits in it's wake it would be better to list them individually. SirGrant 00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Controversy

There has been significant controversy within and around SmoothWall, largely centered on individual personalities. Slashdot had an article about Smoothwall, a review of it, and the treatment of the reviewer. It may make for an interesting read. http://it.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=02/01/09/2050237

I agree that the text is not neutral and sounds like a sales pitch. Comments such as "a staple example of Open Source software" and "picked up by the IT press worldwide" is strong language for a such a product. Bcnstony 02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unoffical Wiki Website

I am unable to get to the "SmoothWall (unofficial) Wiki", it seems to be linked to a dyndns account that is no longer active or disabled. I searched around the internet looking to see if the address has changed but I am unable to come up with anything. I am going to remove it, if anyone finds the correct url for it please post. Bear21 18:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

smoothwall

it is hell I cannot accessed any thing and a stupid kid keeps making bird noses because it wont work and has gone insane

smoothwall 3

Is smoothwall 3 express a stable app? The article seems ambiguously worded, despite the website saying a stable version is out. 24.252.89.123 (talk) 07:24, 16 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I should disclose that I am a member of the Express team :D My answer is yes. We underwent a long beta phase before releasing 3 and there have been several updates since it came out of beta. (ImranC)

Smoothwall or SmoothWall?

Which is correct? The article appears confused and inconsistent on the matter. 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:21, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

For example, the primary title of the article is "SmoothWall", to which "Smoothwall" is a redirect. However the text of the article begins "Smoothwall is…" 83.104.249.240 (talk) 15:25, 3 September 2014 (UTC)[reply]

According to the websites of both the Open Source Smoothwall project (http://www.smoothwall.org/) and the privately held Smoothwall company (http://www.smoothwall.com/), the name as dropped the capitalized W. Lumnicence (talk) 20:05, 5 March 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Requested move 9 November 2015

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus. Concerns may be alleviated by editorial actions (e.g. splitting), but if that doesn't work feel free to re-nominate in a few months. Jenks24 (talk) 11:56, 29 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

SmoothWall → ? – What they said. This article should be moved. 169.252.4.21 (talk) 16:20, 9 November 2015 (UTC) --Relisted. Natg 19 (talk) 00:42, 17 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Split it appears the more appropriate thing would be to split out Smoothwall and SmoothWall content into two separate articles. Tiggerjay (talk) 16:12, 20 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on SmoothWall. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927033209/http://www.networkcomputing.com/article/printFullArticle.jhtml?articleID=193003671 to http://www.networkcomputing.com/article/printFullArticle.jhtml?articleID=193003671

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:16, 25 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Overview needed

An "overview" section is needed, simply to say what SmoothWall is. Scanning the article, it seems to be some kind of firewall, but that's not made clear early-on. 152.51.56.1 (talk) 14:35, 5 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Smoothwall .org and .com

Is smoothwall.org still a free version of smoothwall.com? If so it seems to be abandonware with the last release in 2014. I cant find any remaining connection between these two projects. Mtpaley (talk) 03:30, 29 September 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Criticism

I don't know why there's no section about the criticism of Smoothwall, mostly due to its incredibly sensitive filter that'll block literally anything that mentions something that's blacklisted. TotallyCreativeName (talk) 14:35, 19 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]