RE: [squid-users] what's better than msproxy 2: Does someone wants to laugh ?

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 11:36:45 +0100
>From: Van Bossche Koen <Koen.VanBossche@kone.com>
>Subject: RE: [squid-users] what's better than msproxy 2:
Does someone want s to laugh ?
>To: "'Fathi Ben Nasr'" <fathi.engineer@gnet.tn>, Squid Users
<squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>
>Hi,
>
>True upper-management are the once need to be convinced. I
had problems with
>that already in 2 company's. One company I succeeded
successfull. The other
>firm didn't abandon linux, but uses now BlueCoat (previously
CacheFlow) in
>stead.
>
>After checking/configuring and testing that BlueCoat
appliance, I'll forward
>you my personal facts (I hope it helps) :
I am always interrested in hear about other peoples'
experiences.
What os bluecoat runs on ?
And how does it cost approximattly to set it up for 200-400
users (hardware, licensing, support, and other hidden costs
included) ?
>- squid is much more flexible
>- cost is in most cases eventually more expensive than
presented originally
>by your supplier. We bought BlueCoat appliance SG800 with
2GB mem and 2x76Gb
>SCSI disks + smartfilter for reporting and we additional
also would need a
>new Solaris stations for Trend ICAP virusscanning. (On linux
I ran Trend
>Interscan).
>- content filtering is about the same as I had it configured
with squidguard
>- previously I used on squid adzap which works pretty well.
It's however not
>possible on this new CacheFlow to filter away those annoying
ads completely.
>- FTP with command line or GUI client is not possible (will
be implemented
>next year). On linux I used FWTK, to do that.
>- Previously we used our linux proxy also as a time server
for our nt
>domain. This also is not possible with Cacheflow, it only
supports ntp to be
>used by bluecoat itself.
>
>The big benefit we have with BlueCoat implementation is the
transparant NTLM
>(BlueCoat solves transparant NTLM also for intranet servers
using NTLM
>authentication) AND the java management tool for
administration
>(administrator being a non UNIX guy).
>
>I several times have to fight against local NT
administrators and
>management, but my impression is it's slowly changing.
>
>
>Kind Regards,
>./koen
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Fathi Ben Nasr [mailto:fathi.engineer@gnet.tn]
>> Sent: 8859-01-17 01:00:00
>> To: Squid Users
>> Subject: Re: [squid-users] what's better than msproxy 2:
Does someone
>> wants to laugh ?
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> I have probably been misunderstood.
>>
>> I am a user of squid since some years now and don't want
to
>> change. I have
>> also
>> tried to influence/convince our decision makers to use
what I
>> call ALGOS
>> (apache
>> linux and other gnu stuff). But this ones or more exactly
the previous
>> decision
>> makers didn't want to have any linux box running anywhere
in
>> the company;
>> they
>> are probably anti free/inexpensive software. I have to try
to
>> convince the
>> new
>> decision makers to use algos but I am in short of
arguments (or more
>> exactly new
>> arguments).
>>
>> Now, the technical decision influencers doesn't even want
to
>> allow me to
>> make
>> demonstrations of the power and flexibility of squid and
are
>> evaluating new
>> cache/proxy software they didn't give me the names of. All
>> what I could
>> have as
>> information from these people is that the software they
will
>> probably use
>> is a
>> one that browses continuously the internet refreshing its
>> cache without
>> request
>> from the client and I am looking for arguments to present
to the new
>> decision
>> makers to convince them to not use such a bandwidth waster
>> software or at
>> least
>> to give me a chance to make a squid demonstartion.
>>
>> TIA.
>> FAthi Ben Nasr
>>
>> Apache a écrit :
>>
>> > Dear Fathi,
>> > your story is kinda intresting. ;)
>> > but did you compare with the feature for squid with
msproxy?
>> > What i think the major different is the price and
>> performance for that
>> > product.
>> >
>> > Do you have a result to stat the msproxy perform great.
>> > If you would like to talk bout performance. I think Joe
is
>> right person
>> to
>> > talk to.
>> >
>> > you paid and thats what you get. you paid for the
bandwidth
>> which you
>> > subcribed for. why not you able to utilise the service.
or maybe you
>> talking
>> > bout a different case.
>> >
>> > free product doesnt mean bad product, depends on how you
>> evaluate that
>> > product. and how it can fit to your environment.
>> >
>> > regards,
>> > hwahing
>> >
>> > On 16 =?iso-8859-1?Q?-D=E9c-2002_09=3A54=3A40_CET?=,
Fathi
>> Ben Nasr wrote
>> > > Hello,
>> > >
>> > > This is not a joke but a real story.
>> > > I have people here thinking to replace msproxy 2
by a
>> cahe they saw
>> > > in a demonstartion.
>> > >
>> > > What this cache does is continuously browse the
internet
>> and reload
>> > > pages that have been visited by its users and if
>> necessary refreshes
>> > > them so that when a user reconnects to that site it
gets the page
>> > > from the cache and not from the internet.
>> > >
>> > > What I know is that this is a big waste of bandwith
>> secondly and that
>> > > firstly the internet is not ours and so should not be
>> overloaded by
>> > > unusefull traffic reloading ech half an our pages that
>> are probably
>> > > consulted once a week.
>> > >
>> > > Do you see any other inconvinient so I could convince
>> this people to
>> > > not do at least such a big mistake. They still blind
and
>> deaf to the
>> > > use of open-source software.
>> > >
>> > > The reason ? Do you remeber the first reclam for the
renault clio
>> > > car : not enough expensive ?
>> > >
>> > > TIA
>> > >
>> > > Fathi B.N.
>> > >
>> > > (See attached file: smime.p7s)
>>
>> (See attached file: smime.p7s)
>>
Received on Tue Dec 17 2002 - 08:52:13 MST