drougnor

Ok, so I just spent 4 hours working out a solution for getting the Setup Factory software to work with the Proxy Server here at work, and it turned out that the problem I was having is that the server refused to take the username and password the way the manual said it should . . . I had to fall back to simple Internet authentication methods vs Proxy Server methods . . . Four hours because the server decided to poll for the UN/PW like a typical web page . . . frustration in action . . . So, this made me stop to ask - JUST how many ppl would be using this to install systems behind a proxy server? And if they do, how many use my method vs the way the manual says it should work . . .

Now, to answer the question of WHY I was looking to put it in . . . I want to have the program eventually go out to the download webpage for the FAH core and find the latest core, then download it automatically, so the program will ALWAYS use the newest core. However, since I test this at work so I have at least 2 different machines testing it on, and work uses a proxy server, I HAVE to have it set up that way to make sure I can get the file.

If you are willing to help me get a feel for what's out there, I figure that I can make a simple program that will try downloading the file three different ways:

1 - Straight from the web site with no authentication (no proxy at all)
2 - Passing the username/password to the proxy server as if it were requested by a web page (how this network does it)
and
3 - passing the username/password to the proxy server as the manual suggests.

So, I put forward to you, how many of you would be using this on a Proxy Server network, and how many of you would be willing to help me test different setups for passing the proxy server information? Just reply and give your feelings on the matter.

(I'm basically trying to futureproof the HELL out of this setup program so we won't have to tinker with it in the near future, unless Stanford decides to overhaul the web page that the F@H group uses drastically.)

__________________

Bionic

I have an idea, I'll respond to your post without answering your question
Have you emailed any of the F@H team to ask for their input? I bet they've got a ton of experience with installers for THEIR program, and when you tell them that a high-ranked team is trying even harder to crank out more WUs for them, they should be more than happy to help.

I'm not on a proxy, but I'll give the installer a shot when you get a working version

__________________

drougnor

Quote: Originally Posted by Bionic I have an idea, I'll respond to your post without answering your question Have you emailed any of the F@H team to ask for their input? I bet they've got a ton of experience with installers for THEIR program, and when you tell them that a high-ranked team is trying even harder to crank out more WUs for them, they should be more than happy to help. I'm not on a proxy, but I'll give the installer a shot when you get a working version

Bionic, the simple answer is because this ISN'T about the F@H Console. This particular line of questioning is about what kind of proxy servers the ppl who are going to be using our 'branded' installer with, and how the setup program reacts to those servers. No more, no less. If I were stuck about how the Core itself dealt with the proxy servers, I'd be all over asking the F@H ppl. I figured this was a question best asked of the target audience.

__________________