Pfsense lusca 2.1.3
-
thank you for that.. so no chance to install lusca into version 2.1.3? :-\
-
i hope there will be an updates for this thank you..
-
i hope there will be an updates for this thank you..
Unless you can convince a reputable developer to take up maintaining the package I wouldn't get your hopes up.
-
-
so i better switch to the lower version which lusca cache is supported ..
Hell no. Use Squid. There is absolutely no reasonable reason to use Lusca.
-
i hope there will be an updates for this thank you..
Unless you can convince a reputable developer to take up maintaining the package I wouldn't get your hopes up.
so i better switch to the lower version which lusca cache is supported ..
Absolutely not. Lusca was NEVER a supported package. You really need to read the link cmb posted.
-
OK thank you.. for the replies.. I will forget lusca
-
It would be interesting to know why people are wanting to run Lusca. I can find nothing of note that might make me want to. :-
Is it just because there are a few how-tos out there detailing installing it on pfSense?Steve
-
It would be interesting to know why people are wanting to run Lusca. I can find nothing of note that might make me want to.
+1
I really don't get it, why do people want this? AFAICT there isn't anything there that isn't doable in Squid. And why do they completely ignore massive warnings that it's a bad idea to set your package repo to some malware-hosting server?
-
Maybe lusca is faster or lighter than squid? I don't even know lusca so that's just a thought.
-
It's a fork of squid that supposedly "fixes" some parts of squid, though it's pretty vague. I gather it's also supposed to cache youtube videos.
It may make a viable package some day, but not being pulled from someone else's repo on a malware site…
-
It's a fork of squid that supposedly "fixes" some parts of squid, though it's pretty vague. I gather it's also supposed to cache youtube videos.
Squid3 can cache YouTube (well, sort of).
It may make a viable package some day, but not being pulled from someone else's repo on a malware site…
I wouldn't bother. Based on what I see here, Lusca is a dead project. No published releases after October 2010. There were some additional commits up through June 2011 but that's still pretty long ago.
-
Sounds as though the things "fixed" by Lusca might also have been fixed in Squid 3.x without the need of a fork.
-
Yeah it's had a grand total of 5 commits since July 2011 and none in over a year, safe to say it's dead. It seems to have started over disagreements over Squid 3.x in general, but things since fixed in Squid 3.x.
-
everybody love and still used or searching or used maybe tricky lusca out there..
-
Hmm, I don't understand what you're trying to say. That there are still people running lusca-cache? That it runs on 2.1.2?
Steve
-
@cmb:
so i better switch to the lower version which lusca cache is supported ..
Hell no. Use Squid. There is absolutely no reasonable reason to use Lusca.
you always say to use Squid but there is no noob step by step tutorial to make it work like lusca does.
lusca caches everything and there is a lot of step by step guide to make it happen. and that satisfies our needs.
I tried to install Squid many times and try to follow every procedure in the net but still fail to cache everything
that i browse like webpages, patches for games, specially videos from the net, etc. i guess some of us are maintaining
5 or more pc's that is why pfsense lusca is very handy. hope you get what i mean and why we still insist to use lusca.
