Initiating "squid.conf" for a desktop PC with FC11

[Parshwa Murdia]

> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: stan <gryt2 at q.com>
> To: users at lists.fedoraproject.org
> 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 at sasktel.net> 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 at yahoo.com.au>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> 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 at sasktel.net>
> To: Community support for Fedora users <users at lists.fedoraproject.org>
> 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'.
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/users/attachments/20100617/eec2c32e/attachment.html