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

---- Original message ----
>Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 10:46:16 -0000
>From: "Dan Cave" <mogul@totalise.co.uk>
>Subject: Re: [squid-users] what's better than msproxy 2:
Does someone wants to  laugh ?
>To: "Fathi Ben Nasr" <fathi.engineer@gnet.tn>, "Squid Users"
<squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>
>Ben,
>
>It sounds like you IT people have more money than sense.
>
:-) :-) :-)
Exactly. The new ones are better (I hope).
>(i'm pro squid and *nix/opensource) however I have
experience with
>commercial products & how they influence in big companies
>
>From a support perspective, companies would rather pay for
something
>commercial that they can get support for, even if it uses
opensource. There
>is a sense of commercial responsibility there also, having
someone to blame
>if the software doesn't work/hardware fails. i know of at
least five
>companies I've dealt with who've dumped Squid on
FreeBSD/*nix for /netscape
>proxy/ iPlanet on Solaris, a cost increase of around
1000%... similarly
>apache for A.N Other commercial webserver product.
>
>What you also have to recognise that If you have a *nix
squid server and
>it's working nicely, and you happen to leave, then the box
goes pear shaped
>(for whatever reason), then it is perceived to be much
harder to get a unix
>person who knows your particular breed of solution, however
its supposed to
>be easier to get a microsoft monkey to administrate ISA/MS
proxy on a win
>platform. Having the best mousetrap isn't always a good
thing...
>
>Alot of companies have in the past been pro branded names,
and recognise a
>good industry name with a particular solution. This gives a
certain sense of
>credibility. ie, buying M1cr0$oft. It's not necessarily the
best product at
>doing X, but comes with support and "supposedly" has a good
reputation.
>(however, others will disagree).
>
>However, if you were to fully document all features with
detailed
>instructions on how to administrate your system with minimal
unix knowledge,
>including troubleshooting, then it would be benificial to
you to keep what
>you have. if you did happen to leave, or be off on
holiday/ill, then it
>would be possible for anyone to fix your cache server.
>
>Cost vs performance. If to achieve a good service your *nix
system costs say
>$1000 and your new proposed Win solution costs around
$10,000, then you
>have a perfectly valid business case to keep your existing
system.
>
>Bells and whistles, Add in some kind of reporting tool like
sarg and dans
>guardian (a true internet content filter) and show your
boss who's doing
>what and who's looking at inappropriate sites (i know its an
iffy thing to
>do) but it'll win you brownie points... (just make sure you
have a back door
>out of your proxy so he doesn't see you internet access ;-)
http-gw is
>usually a good one, or another squid server on another
port). Have the
>reporting server run on an htttps server which requires a
client browser
>certificate/apache .htaccess for your reports? Compile in
SNMP support and
>install MRTG to monitor your bandwidth/squid useages... You
boss will love
>you for it, (not the sort of stuff that you can get readily
on MS)
>
>There is always the licensing costs MS vs *nix. Typically
if you were to
>have a win2k domain with say 200 users, and installed MS ISA
server, you
>would be looking at a client access license for each desktop
who wishes to
>access the proxy server, then the Win2k server license, cost
of hardware,
>plus the MS ISA server itself. (it doesn't take a rocket
scientist to do
>some quick calculations as to how much this mounts up to).
>
>If you're argument for keeping MS is futile, then shoot your
boss, or find
>another job and leave... (you wish)

I have also set up sqmgrlog to log every connection and have
an mrtg installation monitoring the link between our network
and the remote one where the msproxy resides.
My squid is not/no more connected to the internet directly
and I have to use ntml aps to proxy ntlm authentication
between squid and the msproxy as the nt maneger wouldn't
allow clear text authentication. Not because of security but
only because she thinks we can do everything with inetrnet
explorer.
>
>Good luck
Thank You
>
>dan
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: "Fathi Ben Nasr" <fathi.engineer@gnet.tn>
>To: "Squid Users" <squid-users@squid-cache.org>
>Sent: Friday, January 17, 8859 12:00 AM
>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 - 09:00:10 MST