---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: stan <gryt2@xxxxx>
To: users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 07:26:45 -0700
Subject: Re: Initiating "squid.conf" for a desktop PC with FC11
On Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:56:28 -0600
Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
I can recommend this procedure. I've been using it without problem for
(not exactly sure) at least three generations of Fedora. Subjectively
faster as Tim said because there is no retrieval of ads from the ad
servers.
I w'd have to go to the tutorial to know and see how it works, but as you say you have a decent experience to use it, I think it would be good to implement it.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Tim <ignored_mailbox@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 20:24:49 +0930
Subject: Re: Initiating "squid.conf" for a desktop PC with FC11
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 12:11 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> Installed squid only for the desktop single PC and is to be used for
> the single PC only. The main reasons to implement it is:
>
> 1. Speed improvement (or bandwidth improvement)
I can't see you managing that for a single PC. Caching proxies help
with speed and bandwidth on a LAN where several browsers may look at the
same resource. Then everyone *after* the first person will get the
cached copy.
But when only one person uses a computer, their browser is the only
thing that needs to download web data, and going through a proxy will
actually slow things down (the proxy has to get it, then you have to get
it from the proxy). Granted that's a very small slowdown, but there's
certainly no speed up. It takes the proxy just as long to get it as the
browser would have.
But, after years of playing with proxies, I've come to the conclusion
that they don't help much even with multiple LAN users. Most people
don't view the same data, lots of data isn't cacheable, or broken
websites turn what would be cacheable data into something that's
uncacheable. About the only times it helped were when one user passes
around a "hey look at this page" message, and people were looking at
exactly the same page. And software updates; the first update run would
cache the files, and the following update runs would re-use the cached
files.
Doubt now cleared that proxy for a single PC would not be good.
> 2. For security purpose so that intruders or transpassers cannot keep
> an eye.
A proxy isn't going to stop someone seeing what you browse, if they can
do that. They'll still be able to see what's being browsed through the
proxy. On the other hand, for a LAN with multiple users, a caching
proxy can actually be a security problem, if users access things that
aren't secured (when they should be), and the proxy caches it.
On the other hand, you can use a filtering proxy that simply doesn't
fetch some data (e.g. when a page asks for an advert, or known tracking
images, etc., the proxy can be filtered so it doesn't allow it). If
that's what you mean, then privoxy is one thing that works that way.
I meant only the later which is, in fact, proxy filtering. It is proxy filtering to be implemented as far as security is concerned.
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Frank Cox <theatre@xxxxxxxxxxx>
To: Community support for Fedora users <users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Thu, 17 Jun 2010 00:56:28 -0600
Subject: Re: Initiating "squid.conf" for a desktop PC with FC11
On Thu, 2010-06-17 at 12:11 +0530, Parshwa Murdia wrote:
> How could it be activated and implemented in FC11?
http://www.melvilletheatre.com/articles/squid-privoxy/index.html
Thanks for the good link. As I am new, it would take much time for me to go through and see the things related with 'squid.conf'.
-- users mailing list users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe or change subscription options: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/users Guidelines: http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Mailing_list_guidelines
