On Saturday 12 April 97, at 14 h 51, the keyboard of Ralf Rudolph
<ralf@artifex.de> wrote:
> But for other reasons, I would like to know, where are the big differences be
tween squid and the other caching solutions, e.g. netscape and
microsoft´s cache
servers? I mean, apart from the fact that the others cost money...
AFAIK, Microsoft or Netscape products cannot be inserted in an hierarchy
of caches, like many Internet access providers use. (They lack the ICP
protocol, which, among other things, provide resistance to failures of an
upper cache.) This is the main problem.
Apart from that, you do not have the sources, you are not sure your needs
are taken into account, you have no mailing list like squid-users.
> If I told someone, "use squid if you have unix knowledge, otherwise choose be
tween MS and NS as you like", would you tell me wrong? Are there major
facts th
at distinguish these systems?
This is reasonable advice. I hate Microsoft and Netscape products but
it's true Unix take time to master. If people are already knowledgeable
in Windows NT, it can be a good idea not to switch to Unix just for Web
caching.
Received on Mon Apr 14 1997 - 00:26:34 MDT
This archive was generated by hypermail pre-2.1.9 : Tue Dec 09 2003 - 16:34:59 MST