In all but the largest of organisations, transparent proxies are rare in my (admittedly limited) experience. Transparent proxies are pretty damn expensive because in order to be transparent, they must be a hop on the way to your internet connection - therefore, they see ALL traffic, not just web. Therefore, they must be exceedingly powerful, at least compared to explicit proxies. Plus, if a non-cluster transparent proxy fails, you lose everything until the hardware is fixed, or bypassed. With explicit proxies, you can usually just push a group policy change (in an AD environment anyway) to tell the browsers to go direct (and open your firewall accordingly). Anyway, implementation aside, this is still an issue for anyone using Ubuntu in an environment where port 80 is closed and explicit proxies are your only route to the internet.
And yep - volunteer led. I get it. That's why I'm filing against this report. However, I don't know the first thing about how to recode Synaptic to make use of Gnome-led initiatives such as preferences/Network Proxy when using wget. In fact, I don't program at all - I'm a network and security analyst and Ubuntu enthusiast. If any of my talents become applicable to resolving a bug in Ubuntu, I'll do my best to help. For now, I'm just happy that I've managed to introduce Ubuntu to my corporatation (albeit in a small way) and if this bug is nailed, it's got more chance of taking off. -- Synaptic does not use proxy in some cases https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/232469 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
