-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA256 I will explain why I am extremely outraged by this position. Every single major players - both from the Web companies and from suppliers caching solutions (BlueCoat, ThunderCache etc.) - to one degree or another violate RFC. And developers of position - is to be paladins in white robes, who strictly follow these _recommendations_ (not standard, please note!) And to be holier than the Pope, even at the expense of its users! And, what is the strangest thing, while being the most support among the users. At the same time, for a moment, everybody forgets one simple thing. Traffic - is money. A lot of money. Almost nowhere is there any truly unlimited Internet, and we - the users - are paying money for it. And because of the position of developers, we lose money. Anybody are told - "Relax, you can always make a fork Or you can always make some crutches as you like. This OpenSource, baby!". We can - and do. But this is - not the solution. This is problem disregard. Yes, we can make a fork. Yes, we can buy a commercial solution. But then the question arises - why, in fact, if at all there is Squid? For pathos? Or, as a source of commercial forks? The trend is that the one who can with impunity violate RFC - he got a lot of money. Remaining calm myself that this is the standard, it is required to follow all. Go on! Most people believe that Squid is worth nothing as a caching proxy! And - they right. Vanilla Squid makes not above 10% byte hit. With increasing latency. Yes, I know that he is not currently marketed as a caching proxy. Just in case, I'll take another proxy, without the useless features that are not possible without the need to break the RFC recommendations. Just - not needed. 22.10.2016 18:56, Antony Stone пишет: > Disclaimer: I am not a Squid developer. > > On Saturday 22 October 2016 at 14:43:55, garryd@xxxxxxxxx wrote: > >> IMO: >> >> The only reason I believe [explains] why core developers of Squid tend to >> move HTTP violating settings from average users is to prevent possible >> abuse/misuse. > > I believe the reason is that one of Squid's goals is to be RFC compliant, > therefore it does not contain features which violate HTTP. > >> Nevertheless, I believe that core developers should publish an >> _official_ explanations regarding the tendency, as it often becomes a >> "center of gravity" of many topics. > > Which "tendency"? > > What are you asking for an official explanation of? > > > Antony. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2 iQEcBAEBCAAGBQJYC2X3AAoJENNXIZxhPexGgZYH/1/YbvICadk7nrFD/6znHC8y JD74iAsB9XEKm9VSKKF+dEmKpBKs0iP4kJe75NZqJ8dBh6hM5H5FDAix7kvqkSj1 rJqxaqzZs2FfOO2+ylNYAVyjSVDWrsstpvX2fBMK8I4+WDXzAHzvYrFyo/KpP8uO brdlrWrubMH0mfAJGIiVT/R3rNuRh7ZXkihakv2iLTg4ayZsQoDEgcbFfDW9ZN0M mPWiPe2gofluXj2lYoAH/albY0NVypyvCSs0c9CBjvFwaMyj1pzbpHz0udsM1ix8 uZ7WTQPnuM4qh1lFNPHJ1bMUW3Fz9AiHXdrs2Ct0llppoj+pdGoAG4aQuefZhDw= =pGxs -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
Attachment:
0x613DEC46.asc
Description: application/pgp-keys
_______________________________________________ squid-users mailing list squid-users@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx http://lists.squid-cache.org/listinfo/squid-users
