Ethereal-dev: Re: [Ethereal-dev] Another Windows-only sniffer: PacScope ...
Is it worthwhile to try and bring that page up to date?
There appears to be some misinformation, and some stuff that has
recently been added that would change yes's to no's.
It also appears that an "expert" mode seems to be the biggest pitfall of
using ethereal... I personally don't know what would normally be in
such a mode. I could imagine that some "expert" features are burried in
the normal protocol dissectors (and might also need to be enabled in the
preferences before first use... like the overlooked http reassembly)).
Should there be any effort to correlate the entries in the table with
official wish list items?
------------------------------
On Tue, 2 Sep 2003, Greg Morris wrote:
Have you seen this comparison page?
http://www.thetechfirm.com/reviews/
I found it several months ago... It is a little outdated but it does
have quite a bit of information.
Indeed, there is quite a lot of information there. Some things that are
missing are:
Number of protocols
Extent to which protocols are handled
Analysis screens ...
Regards
-----
Richard Sharpe, rsharpe[at]ns.aus.com, rsharpe[at]samba.org,
sharpe[at]ethereal.com, http://www.richardsharpe.com
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Ethereal-dev mailing list
Ethereal-dev@xxxxxxxxxxxx
http://www.ethereal.com/mailman/listinfo/ethereal-dev
End of Ethereal-dev Digest, Vol 5, Issue 10
*******************************************
