This article is ratedStart-class on Wikipedia'scontent assessment scale. It is of interest to the followingWikiProjects:

LinuxLow‑importance This article is within the scope ofWikiProject Linux, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage ofLinux on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can jointhe discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinuxWikipedia:WikiProject LinuxTemplate:WikiProject LinuxLinux Low This article has been rated asLow-importance on theproject's importance scale.

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).Linuxlad23:34, 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 linksSirGrant23:38, 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 akaLinuxlad

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 wellSirGrant00:04, 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.SirGrant00:11, 9 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Bcnstony02:23, 19 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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.Bear2118:52, 6 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

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

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)

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]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

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

• Added archivehttps://web.archive.org/web/20070927033209/http://www.networkcomputing.com/article/printFullArticle.jhtml?articleID=193003671 tohttp://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 byInternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other thanregular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editorshave permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see theRfC 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 withthis tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them withthis tool.

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

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]

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]

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]

The issue with this article is that it appears to list ZERO criticisms of Smoothwall, despite the fact that it is PLAGUED with issues e.g. lagging and freezing, filter blocking educational sites etc. Then the Wikipedia mods complain “thEReS nOT enOUGH ReliAblE sOUrCes!” as if mainstream media can be relied on for absolutely everything. Apart from the issue of many “reliable source” having debatable reliability and accuracy, but it also sidelines irrefutable experience for the easily twisted theory. This is the flaw that prevents Wikipedia for achieving true greatness, and the flaw that fuels the fire for things like the Battle for Dream Island predicament. How can a show so influential and massive not be notable? (SeeWP:BFDI for context) Such rigidity and undue steadfastness will be the the fall of Wikipedia.~2025-31651-62 (talk)09:06, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

EDIT: Never mind, it turns out an article forBattle for Dream Island was made, after almost fifteen years of mindless rulings that it wasn’t “nOTaBlE enOUgH”. It seems that the mods had had enough and folded. I’d like to congratulate myself and all my brethren who pressured Wikipedia into putting BFDI on Wikipedia. That being said, this appears to be an isolated case that probably won’t set any precedent, so there’ll probably be more uphill fights against these archaic rules down the line.~2025-31320-94 (talk)13:25, 6 November 2025 (UTC)[reply]

• Start-Class Linux articles
• Low-importance Linux articles
• WikiProject Linux articles