The only reason I haven't upgraded beyond the current stable 2.6 code is that some third part companies (like Secure Computing, who we use as a Squid plugin) only supports certain versions of squid. I haven't even played with 3.0 because of this. I think squid hands down is an amazing proxy software and I will continue to keep using it going forward. We use are proxies as content filtering devices as well...so need the support of both. Your comments about apache are dead on... - Nick -----Original Message----- From: Robert Collins [mailto:robertc@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx] Sent: Sunday, March 16, 2008 9:25 PM To: Adrian Chadd Cc: squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Subject: Re: Squid Future (was Re: [squid-users] Squid-2, Squid-3, roadmap) On Mon, 2008-03-17 at 10:18 +0900, Adrian Chadd wrote: > At the end of the day, I'd rather see something that an increasing > number of people on the Internet will use and - I won't lie here - > whatever creates a self sustaining project, both from community and financial perspectives. I agree with this. FWIW I see squid 2 and 3 as very similar to apache 1.x and 2.x - apache 2 took a _long_ time to be considered an 'upgrade' by _all_ users, and squid3 has been in the same boat. I don't think that the amount of work to make squid3 better for all users is insurmountable by the community, and I think that continuing the polish on squid3 is the best way forward. YMMV of course :). -Rob -- GPG key available at: <http://www.robertcollins.net/keys.txt>.
