[PL] PL2006: Kerio Personal Firewall version?

[Susan Bugher]

PL2005 shows version 2.1.5 of Kerio Personal Firewall (and notes it is
an earlier version). The posted description proposes to change the
description to show the current version (v 4.2.1)

28 people voted for Kerio during the PL2005 selection process. Please
speak up if you plan to vote for it this year. Which version do you
use/like/recommend/think should be listed on the PL2006 ballot?

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[bambam]

PL2005 shows version 2.1.5 of Kerio Personal Firewall (and notes it is
an earlier version). The posted description proposes to change the
description to show the current version (v 4.2.1)

28 people voted for Kerio during the PL2005 selection process. Please
speak up if you plan to vote for it this year. Which version do you
use/like/recommend/think should be listed on the PL2006 ballot?

2.1.5 for me.

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

PL2005 shows version 2.1.5 of Kerio Personal Firewall (and notes it is
an earlier version). The posted description proposes to change the
description to show the current version (v 4.2.1)

28 people voted for Kerio during the PL2005 selection process. Please
speak up if you plan to vote for it this year. Which version do you
use/like/recommend/think should be listed on the PL2006 ballot?

Susan

2.15 for me also - later version is bloated and problematic

 

[MLC]

mercoledì 5 ottobre 2005 Alastair Smeaton ha scritto:

2.15 for me also - later version is bloated and problematic

Which later?
We're speaking about the latest, 4.2.1, released 6 days ago.
Did you try it? I don't think a firewall running three processes for a
total of 28 MB is bloated, and I can't see any problematic issue.

OTOH after 2.1.5 they've addressed and fixed resource leaks, low-risk
security bugs, and they've added boot time protection (IMO very important).

Then I don't understand why we should vote PL a firewall version lacking
these fixes, when is available a free more secure version.

I'm for 4.2.1.

 

[Steve H]

2.1.5 for me.

Ditto

Regards,

 

[Demetris]

I use 2.1.5.

Why not have both versions on the ballot?

Comparison table for versions 2, 4 Free, 4 Full, from the Wayback
Machine: http://tinyurl.com/ddfzj

Greetings,
Demetris

 

[REM]

Which later?
We're speaking about the latest, 4.2.1, released 6 days ago.
Did you try it? I don't think a firewall running three processes for a
total of 28 MB is bloated, and I can't see any problematic issue.

OTOH after 2.1.5 they've addressed and fixed resource leaks, low-risk
security bugs, and they've added boot time protection (IMO very important).

Then I don't understand why we should vote PL a firewall version lacking
these fixes, when is available a free more secure version.

I'm for 4.2.1.

That is surprising that they are continuing development. One forum
comment of interest:

"On the download page, it says that the filesize is 7.5 MB. I just
downloaded the file twice, and both times the size of the downloaded
file (kerio-kpf-4.2.1-896-win.exe) was 5,510,312 bytes. I run the
file, and the installation procedure starts, but I canceled it - I
wanted to make sure this is the full file. Any comments?? I mean, its
more than 2 MBs smaller than previous 4.xx.xx versions!"

No response from Kerio personnel yet.

Have you tried this version Maria?

That is my "gripe" about v4.xx, it is bloated with commercial
components that quit working. If this is a slimmer version I'd like to
give it a shot.

Otherwise, I lean towards v2.1.5, or listing both versions.

The forums are still quite active. Here is a problem with VirusScan
Enterprise 8.0i and the new version of Kerio:

http://forums.kerio.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7272&start=0&S=ab8cde0530f0234d8d7d8ceb744554d3

Kerio 4.2.1 crashes:

http://forums.kerio.com/index.php?t=msg&th=7297&start=0&S=ab8cde0530f0234d8d7d8ceb744554d3

Kerio Archive: (help files are separate dl)

http://download.kerio.com/archive

 

[MLC]

mercoledì 5 ottobre 2005 REM ha scritto:

"On the download page, it says that the filesize is 7.5 MB. I just
downloaded the file twice, and both times the size of the downloaded
file (kerio-kpf-4.2.1-896-win.exe) was 5,510,312 bytes. I run the
file, and the installation procedure starts, but I canceled it - I
wanted to make sure this is the full file. Any comments?? I mean, its
more than 2 MBs smaller than previous 4.xx.xx versions!"

Yep, the file kerio-kpf-4.2.1-896-win.exe is 5382 KB.

No response from Kerio personnel yet.

Have you tried this version Maria?

Sure. I've installed this 4.2.1 and I'm running it without problems.

That is my "gripe" about v4.xx, it is bloated with commercial
components that quit working. If this is a slimmer version I'd like to
give it a shot.

IMHO it's not bloated: you'll have disabled only Web filtering and HIPS
(Host Intrusion and Prevention System), which I don't need, and I don't
think they makes it crippled or bloated with commercials components.
To me a parameter to take in consideration is the memory footprint: here I
see three processes which total 28-29 MB. Not bad for a good firewall.

Otherwise, I lean towards v2.1.5, or listing both versions.

I'd agree with listing both versions, also because last July they dropped
support for Windows 98, ME, NT4.

 

[Mel]

mercoledì 5 ottobre 2005 REM ha scritto:



I'd agree with listing both versions, also because last July they dropped
support for Windows 98, ME, NT4.

Of the two I prefered Kerio 4, unfortunately I use 98se, although
as it conflicted with WinPcap in 98SE I had already ditched it anyway.


I'd also suggest listing both, Kerio V2 and V4 are different
programs.

Regards,

Mel.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Of the two I prefered Kerio 4, unfortunately I use 98se, although
as it conflicted with WinPcap in 98SE I had already ditched it anyway.

I'd also suggest listing both, Kerio V2 and V4 are different
programs.

I suggest posting a program description for this suggestion. (There are
descriptions for the either/or options.)

I agree that they are different programs - different OS requirements,
different descriptions of what the apps can do, different files,
different URL's etc. etc. etc.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[John Fitzsimons]

I don't think a firewall running three processes for a
total of 28 MB is bloated, and I can't see any problematic issue.

< snip >

Are you talking about memory usage ? If so then that is more than 20
times as much as my Zone Alarm uses.

That would qualify as "bloated" for me.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/

 

[Aaron]

Given that these two firewalls Kerio 2.15 and 4+ are essentially
seperate and differerent products, it makes sense to vote for them
seperately. As this is the nomination phrase, as long as there are
people nominating both, they should both be valid.

I suspect that while Kerio 4 will get a seconder, I doubt it will
garner enough votes to get into pricelessware, but we shouldn't deprive
Kerio 4 of a shot at it, as long as there is a nomination.

So I propose , 2 seperate entries be made for Kerio 4 and 2.

 

[Susan Bugher]

Given that these two firewalls Kerio 2.15 and 4+ are essentially
seperate and differerent products, it makes sense to vote for them
seperately. As this is the nomination phrase, as long as there are
people nominating both, they should both be valid.

I suspect that while Kerio 4 will get a seconder, I doubt it will
garner enough votes to get into pricelessware, but we shouldn't deprive
Kerio 4 of a shot at it, as long as there is a nomination.

So I propose , 2 seperate entries be made for Kerio 4 and 2.

Should the vote be counted separately for each version or do we combine
the vote? Should we make it an either/or choice or let people vote for
both versions? ISTM it's better and fairer to choose a *preferred*
version for Kerio now and vote on that one version - IMO that will give
us a more meaningful result.

Last year we had 3 *pairs* of programs on the ballot.

http://www.pricelesswarehome.org/ftp/Archives/2005PL/PL2005ProgramBallot.txt

<q>
Gravity (#0328-PW) [AND] Super Gravity (#0728-PW)
OE-Quotefix (#0509-PW) [AND] Outlook-Quotefix (#0528-PW)
TightVNC (#0772-PW) [AND] VNC (#0807-PW)
</q>

Note: in earlier years the votes for those pairs were combined to
determine if both programs would be selected - the votes had to be
individually checked to see if one person voted for both programs in a
pair (to avoid double counting).

Those three pairs of apps are a right royal PITA - they complicate the
vote counting considerably and the votes *don't* tell us if there is a
clear preference for one app or the other. The decision to combine those
vote counts was made some years ago - perhaps it's time for another
discussion.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[Philip K]

OE-Quotefix (#0509-PW) [AND] Outlook-Quotefix (#0528-PW)

Why are these regarded as a "pair"? One is an add-in for Microsoft
Outlook Express. The other is an add-in for Microsoft Outlook, a totally
different program.

 

[Susan Bugher]

On Thu, 06 Oct 2005 12:27:31 -0400, Susan Bugher

OE-Quotefix (#0509-PW) [AND] Outlook-Quotefix (#0528-PW)

Why are these regarded as a "pair"? One is an add-in for Microsoft
Outlook Express. The other is an add-in for Microsoft Outlook, a totally
different program.

I wasn't around when the decision was made to combine the votes but I
think it's because they're by the same author and they perform the same
function.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[elaich]

The posted description proposes to change the
description to show the current version (v 4.2.1)

Moot point. Kerio is getting out of the firewall business.

 

[Susan Bugher]

I'd agree with listing both versions, also because last July they dropped
support for Windows 98, ME, NT4.

Hello Maria,

Repeating what I said in another post today: Should the vote be counted
separately for each version or do we combine the vote? Should we make it
an either/or choice or let people vote for both versions? ISTM it's
better and fairer to choose a *preferred* version for Kerio now and vote
on that version - IMO that will give us a more meaningful result.

If we can't reach a consensus on the preferred version through
discussion then I suggest a preliminary vote to decide which version is
preferred. IMO that ballot should be in the week before the start of
Pricelessware voting to ensure mazimum participation.

To date only 5 people have clearly stated a preference:

---------

in favor of listing v 4.2.1

MLC <[email protected]>
---------

in favor of listing v 2.1.5

bambam <[email protected]>
Steve H <[email protected]>
(e-mail address removed)
REM <[email protected]>
---------

Please let me know what your decision is on this.

Susan
--
Posted to alt.comp.freeware
Search alt.comp.freeware (or read it online):
http://www.google.com/advanced_group_search?q=+group:alt.comp.freeware
Pricelessware & ACF: http://www.pricelesswarehome.org
Pricelessware: http://www.pricelessware.org (not maintained)

 

[MLC]

venerdì 7 ottobre 2005 Susan Bugher ha scritto:

ISTM it's better and fairer to choose a *preferred* version for Kerio now
and vote on that version - IMO that will give us a more meaningful
result.

Hi Susan,
I agree with you that it's better to choose it before the PL vote, ISTM it
would help to avoid confusion.

 

[Alastair Smeaton]

mercoledì 5 ottobre 2005 Alastair Smeaton ha scritto:


Which later?
We're speaking about the latest, 4.2.1, released 6 days ago.
Did you try it? I don't think a firewall running three processes for a
total of 28 MB is bloated, and I can't see any problematic issue.

OTOH after 2.1.5 they've addressed and fixed resource leaks, low-risk
security bugs, and they've added boot time protection (IMO very important).

Then I don't understand why we should vote PL a firewall version lacking
these fixes, when is available a free more secure version.

I'm for 4.2.1.

Apologies - I tried the 4.x series twice, fairly soon after it was
released, and it was larger in download size, memory use, and it
crashed several times. It may well be much better now.

Still, I found Kerio 2.15 the best, after trying sygate and many
others - always went back to Kerio - especially as this chap "sponge"
had great rules which could be imported - seem to remember I could not
do this with the later version -this too may have changed

 

[John Fitzsimons]

On Fri, 07 Oct 2005 22:42:53 +0100, Alastair Smeaton

Apologies - I tried the 4.x series twice, fairly soon after it was
released, and it was larger in download size, memory use, and it
crashed several times. It may well be much better now.

Still, I found Kerio 2.15 the best, after trying sygate and many
others - always went back to Kerio - especially as this chap "sponge"
had great rules which could be imported - seem to remember I could not
do this with the later version -this too may have changed

A large number of people here have said that 2.0 is better than 4.0.
Don't know where they have got to on this vote though.

Regards, John.

--
****************************************************
,-._|\ (A.C.F FAQ) http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/faq.html
/ Oz \ John Fitzsimons - Melbourne, Australia.
\_,--.x/ http://www.vicnet.net.au/~johnf/welcome.htm
v http://clients.net2000.com.au/~johnf/