Talk:Varnish (software)

[Untitled]]

A category should be created for http accelerators or whatever is most appropriate, which should probably include at least squid as one of the main rivals, but I'm not precise on the proxy / reverse proxy / accelerator distinction yet, so I left this for another time. MaxEnt 08:22, 26 December 2006 (UTC)

Reads like pro-product marketing drivel

I've never used the product and came here trying to find info on it. I am sadly unimpressed that this article reads like a marketing brochure.

How about real-world comparisons with alternatives? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.255.171.141 (talk) 15:34, 9 September 2007 (UTC)

Good idea if you cand find reliable source of that comparison. I might make it, but I will not be reliable source by the means of Wikipedia and it'll be OR 194.30.179.66 (talk) 11:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Current state of article (Nov 2016) does not read like marketing. Extolls virtues of the software, but not more than other Wikipedia software entries. Will remove advert tag Svesterli (talk) 11:48, 2 November 2016 (UTC)

It absolutely does read like marketing. 'Not more than others' is not a justification. (Imagine telling a cop 'he was breaking the law too' when you're stopped for a crime!) It also has individual commands listed, which is highly inappropriate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.155.120.34 (talk) 08:38, 23 March 2020 (UTC)

Question

Is "http accelerator" the same thing as "reverse proxy" ? Fresheneesz (talk) 05:13, 10 December 2008 (UTC)

A little late, but yes, it's the same thing in this context. Though there are "http accelerators" that try to do more fancy/protocol-breaking things. Personally, I prefer the "reverse proxy" term as it's more descriptive. 87.238.43.248 (talk) 18:08, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

That previous comment would be me. KristianLyngstol (talk) 18:11, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

The correct term is “HTTP surrogate”. DES (talk) 01:34, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Removed text

I've removed some marketing phrases about this product from here and other places. Jeblad (talk) 11:13, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

"Rights to the code"

The statement "Currently, the rights to the code are jointly held by Verdens Gang and Linpro." is very troublesome. If the code is released by a BSD license there is no rights left except the rights given through the Norwegian law on authorship given in Åndsverksloven. Previously it is said that it is licensed through a dual license scheme, and then some rights may be held for the additional code. Jeblad (talk) 11:17, 26 March 2009 (UTC)

The rights are still held by the entity holding the copyright, even with a BSD license. While the BSD license places very few restrictions on the use of the work, it is still a license. That being said, it's probably better to just state that "the copyright is held by ..." instead, which is more precise. KristianLyngstol (talk) 21:54, 3 December 2009 (UTC)