|
|
| Author |
Message |
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
 Posted: Jun 06, 2004 12:00pm Post subject: Re: reason to compile unreal without ~ and & |
 |
|
| sliq wrote: | so that all the newbee networks that start up don't have these ridiculous modes, why make it a default when it's an optional mode in the first place on *nix ?
|
Uhm .. it's NOT on by default.
| Code: |
Do you want to enable prefixes for chanadmin and chanowner?
This will give +a the & prefix and ~ for +q (just like +o is @)
Supported by the major clients (mIRC, xchat, epic, eggdrop, Klient, PJIRC, etc.)
with the notable exceptions of irssi, KVIrc and CGI:IRC.
This feature should be enabled/disabled network-wide.
[No] ->
|
| Quote: |
personally, i don't stay on just my own network, i travel around to different networks, and the modes get on my nerves, and what is the reason for the modes? it's default in the windows compile.
|
Then choose other networks if you hate Unreal so much. There isn't anything you can do about it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
sliq
Newbie
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 6:39pm Post subject: duh |
|
|
| we were refering to the windows version for compiling w/o ~ and &, please pay attention b4 responding. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 6:49pm Post subject: |
|
|
hmmm ... so I have missread your post. My apologies .. however I am curious about one thing.
Why are you so avid about having Unreal changed if you hate it and won't use it?
Since you don't use nor plan to use Unreal .. it's none of your business. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sliq
Newbie
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 7:38pm Post subject: cuz |
|
|
Because I use loads of networks that run it, and are too lazy to learn how to not use ./Config (which is quite annoying) and switch to an IRCd that they don't know how to configure because Unreal makes it way to easy.. plus the fact, i'd at least give them a little respect if they'd keep things simular to the way IRC has been for years. @ + % work fine, why add new bullshit? what's the point?
I'm ranting about it because i'm sick of the bullshit. And I feel that i'm expressing the opinion not just of me, but lots of other IRC admins in saying that Unreal needs some major change in 3.3.
Just My 2 Cents. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DeadNotBuried
none
Joined: 01 Mar 2004
Posts: 43
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 7:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
i was always of the opinion it was up to the admins of networks how they wanted to set things up on that network, and not up to the users, if the users don't like how a particular network is setup and run then there are plenty of other networks out there that they can use.
and does it just look like it to me, or is it really that those that don't want to use Unreal on their networks the only ones to complain, but can still never come up with one valid argument against Unreal, and can only claim it's for kiddies and power hungry admins. i can't remember seeing myself anyone that does use unreal try so hard to flame any other IRCd as some that use other IRCd's flame Unreal.
as to any particular option thats in any IRCd on any network, i think any complaints about it being there should be taken up with the admin of the network, as they have the ability to enable/disable just about all modes if they want to (in Unreal at least, not sure about all other IRCd's), and thats a decision for each network to make individually. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 7:56pm Post subject: Re: cuz |
|
|
| sliq wrote: | Because I use loads of networks that run it, and are too lazy to learn how to not use ./Config (which is quite annoying) and switch to an IRCd that they don't know how to configure because Unreal makes it way to easy.. plus the fact, i'd at least give them a little respect if they'd keep things simular to the way IRC has been for years. @ + % work fine, why add new bullshit? what's the point?
|
Name one IRCd that don't require some form of configuration. "New BS" was added for the same reason that the 1903 Ford isn't made anymore .. it's called 'Progression' go with progression or get run over by it.
| Quote: |
I'm ranting about it because i'm sick of the bullshit. And I feel that i'm expressing the opinion not just of me, but lots of other IRC admins in saying that Unreal needs some major change in 3.3.
|
Your ranting because you have nothing else to do. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 06, 2004 8:38pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I'm ranting about it because i'm sick of the bullshit. And I feel that i'm expressing the opinion not just of me, but lots of other IRC admins in saying that Unreal needs some major change in 3.3. |
Well how come none of these other admins you claim to be speaking for have come to post replies in support of you? If you do have a following, as you suggest, why won't they step forward? Instead, all I see is people agreeing with me that they like the extensive features Unreal provides.
Additionally, you haven't really helped anything, "major change in 3.3." That's like saying, "I think everyone would be better off if we had world peace." Great, now how do we do it? You say it needs change, yet you don't provide any information on what changes are needed. That doesn't help anything. The things you are asking for, reduced channel modes, etc. are not the things admins want. Yeah, there probably are some that do, but, just like you, they aren't running Unreal, and they aren't going to run it if we remove those modes. The users we do have do want the modes. So why should we remove them, to satisfy a faction that won't use Unreal anyway? If you provide real changes that need to be made, then I'll listen. But up until now, all you've done is badmouth Unreal. If that is your way of getting the Unreal coders to listen to you, you are very mistaken in your methods. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sliq
Newbie
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 4:44pm Post subject: for one |
|
|
stskeeps, why don't you take a poll of how many of your "admins who agree with the channel modes" because I can almost guarantee you there will be more people who hate those modes than those who actually want them.
and in reference to uchat's comment, i have plenty of things to do, i just happen to enjoy debating when i'm not working on other things, like coding my custom hybrid distribution and working fiddling around with hybrid/bahamut support with geniusdex.
if codemastr can't take criticism that's his own problem, but personally i believe there are a bunch of people who feel that same way as i do, what is the point of modes that do the same thing as the same modes that have existed since the first networks were ever online.
i'm an "old-time" irc user, and hate annoying new things that coders like stskeeps are doing. matter of fact, i wish there was no 3.2
and i'm done with this arguement, i feel you should remove these gay modes, my personal opinion. i really don't understand one bit of reasoning behind them. simply because there is none ... there are plenty of ways you could improve that IRCd... the ~ and & will never be a good one. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urix
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:08pm Post subject: |
|
|
Power, Control, Domination.
IRC is becoming everything it was setup to break away from. You all seem to be forgetting the one key goal of IRC, communication. IRC is not about limiting user’s freedom or keeping them on a tight leash, users connect to IRC to communicate and I am the first to admit some aspect of control is needed to keep things running smoothly. But however it seems over the past year or so there have been more developments to the control aspect of IRCd's such as new usermodes, channelmodes and so on and hardly any development of the CORE aspect of any IRCd, safe, fast and stable data transfer.
Let’s get back to basics here ladies and gentlemen. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sliq
Newbie
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:12pm Post subject: urix |
|
|
thanks bro 
urix, as you've seen i've grown out of hating hybrid pretty damn quickly finish my silk |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
sliq
Newbie
Joined: 02 Jan 2004
Posts: 92
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:14pm Post subject: |
|
|
| urix wrote: | Power, Control, Domination.
IRC is becoming everything it was setup to break away from. You all seem to be forgetting the one key goal of IRC, communication. IRC is not about limiting user’s freedom or keeping them on a tight leash, users connect to IRC to communicate and I am the first to admit some aspect of control is needed to keep things running smoothly. But however it seems over the past year or so there have been more developments to the control aspect of IRCd's such as new usermodes, channelmodes and so on and hardly any development of the CORE aspect of any IRCd, safe, fast and stable data transfer.
Let’s get back to basics here ladies and gentlemen. |
EXACTLY! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
urix
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:19pm Post subject: |
|
|
I forgot to mention one thing in the above post of mine and I believe it may have been the most important part of the post.
I’m not against the development of new usermodes etc, I just believe you should focus more on the core reason the IRCd was constructed. After all if we said no to the development of computers 40 years ago, where would we be now? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
djcrash
none
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 7
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:31pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | Well how come none of these other admins you claim to be speaking for have come to post replies in support of you? If you do have a following, as you suggest, why won't they step forward? Instead, all I see is people agreeing with me that they like the extensive features Unreal provides.
|
Being an experienced oper/admin on SEVERAL networks running just about every IRCd you can imagine, I would have to say Unreal is designed as a basic, easy to use IRCd that is attracting IRC newbies to start their own network, meaning that any admin who knows what their doing will look down on the newbies and therefore Unreal. In my opinion Unreal has gone against every standard IRC has. While I understand that some rebellion and some change and progression are acceptable and welcomed, if we take things too fast eventually it will crash (the computer industry being my example). My point is that if we get millions of newbies starting networks that arent required to learn about IRC and the more complex sides of it, because of a product like Unreal, then IRC as a community is overrun with flaming, power hungry, idiots. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Mortis
none
Joined: 07 Jun 2004
Posts: 3
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 5:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agre with DJCrash on the fact that if these major changes are going to be make, they should be done in a steady fashion so that thing work out the way they should. If a Major up grade or change is made sudenly like for example, the Macintosh OS, When ever they make a major change the up the version # (from 9.1 to 10.1). But if there are few big changes then the sub version is changed (10.2 to 10.3) but if there are things like minor updates the revision number is changed (10.3.3 to 10.3.4)
So if their are going to be major changes to unreal the new version should be 4.0 instead of 3.3 and at least make it so that with all the major changes you do make, you can enable or disable every one of them in config.h , because some people hate major sudden changes and so that they can keep the oper, user, and channel modes. Cause I am personaly use to the @, +, and % as the indcators of a mode. Ad if other ones are going to be added it should be up to the network to enable or disable them (including Protection, Founder, etc... Modes). This would make it so that a Newibe could set up there server while the more advanced server Admins can play around with there settings and not feel restricted. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 07, 2004 10:05pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | stskeeps, why don't you take a poll of how many of your "admins who agree with the channel modes" because I can almost guarantee you there will be more people who hate those modes than those who actually want them |
I don't see anyone named Stskeeps taking part in any discussion here. So why are you talking to him? He isn't reading this, I am. As for a poll. We did take one. We took a poll about whether the channel mode +Q should be removed. 87% of Unreal users voted NO. +Q is probably the *least* useful channel mode in Unreal. It disables the /kick command. And the users didn't even want that gone! So once again I say, if you have so many people who agree with you, where are they? Why aren't they responding here in mass numbers to support you?
| Quote: | | if codemastr can't take criticism that's his own problem, but personally i believe there are a bunch of people who feel that same way as i do, what is the point of modes that do the same thing as the same modes that have existed since the first networks were ever online. |
I can take criticism just fine. But you aren't criticizing. You are insulting. If I say, "sliq is a complete idiot," would you say, "that's just criticism!" No, you'd say I was insulting you. Well you've come out and said Unreal is crap. So how come that should be called criticism? That is an outright, uncalled for, insult. And no, I don't take that very well. I don't like when someone insults something I've put hundreds, if not thousands of hours into making over the last 4+ years of my life.
Modes that do the same thing... Hmm which mode "from the first irc network" adds badword filtering? I guess I missed that in the RFC. What adds color filtering? Surely there is one that adds flood protection? And a mode to stop users from using /invite, that's definately in RFC1459! Oh and yeah there is the one that stops channel CTCPs too. Oh wait a minute! The RFC has NONE of those! My mistake... Unreal has *EVERY* mode that RFC1459 describes, both channel and user. So what are you talking about?
| Quote: | | i'm an "old-time" irc user, and hate annoying new things that coders like stskeeps are doing. matter of fact, i wish there was no 3.2 |
Again you point to Stskeeps. Do you know who added the +a and +q prefixes? ME. It wasn't Stskeeps; Stskeeps has been busy with other things, he hasn't worked on Unreal for well over a year. So I have no idea why you keep bringing him up. He had nothing to do with any of the things you are "criticizing." Furthermore, again, you go back to insults not criticisms. "I wish there was no 3.2" Wow, that really helps us make Unreal better! Again, if I said, "I wish sliq was never born," would you say, "codemastr is just providing criticism, I won't be angry about it." We both know you'd take it as an insult. So why, when you say it about Unreal, should I take it as criticism?
To the others:
| Quote: | | Being an experienced oper/admin on SEVERAL networks running just about every IRCd you can imagine, I would have to say Unreal is designed as a basic, easy to use IRCd that is attracting IRC newbies to start their own network, meaning that any admin who knows what their doing will look down on the newbies and therefore Unreal. |
Wow, I think you got that 100% wrong! Unreal is designed to be an advanced IRCd that is difficult to use. And it is both of those things. A "basic" IRCd? Basic means RFC1459. Unreal is far from basic. You are the first person I've ever heard call it that. We get complaints (like sliq's) that it has TOO MUCH stuff, not that it doesn't have enough! "Easy to use?" We get on average 3-4 support requests on IRC every hour. If it is so easy, why do so many people need help? Unreal is very difficult to setup. Most of the people who say they've switched to Bahamut or Hybrid say it was because Unreal was too hard to setup. Also, why should I care if people, who don't, and never will, use Unreal look down on it? I don't design Unreal for the people who don't use it. I design it for the people who do. So why am I going to make it attractive to people who don't want it? That's like saying Microsoft should target Windows towards Linux users. Real Linux users are never going to switch to Windows, no matter what MS does. So why waste the time, money, and effort?
Additionally, Unreal is probably the least friendly IRCd to IRC newbies. That's the complaint everyone except you makes. How many IRCds out there require admins to take a quiz to prove they have basic IRC knowledge, shell command knowledge, and that they have read the documentation? As far as I know, Unreal is the only one. We do our best to try and make people informed before they start running an IRCd. No others do that. If you want to know why so many inexperienced admins run Unreal, don't blame us. I can tell you exactly who to blame, shell providers. They install Unreal for their users, and then just tell the user "now it's your job to run it." The user has no idea how. It's not our fault that the shell admin, who is experienced, decided to setup Unreal for the inexperienced user.
| Quote: | | In my opinion Unreal has gone against every standard IRC has |
Well that's rather hard since there is no IRC standard. RFC1459 is an Experimental RFC, it does not describe an Internet Standard. RFC2810-2812 are Informational RFCs, they do not define an Internet Standard. To quote right from RFC2810-2812, "It does not specify an Internet standard of any kind." So what standard are we breaking exactly?
And why shouldn't we add new features? To quote from RFC1459, "Discussion and suggestions for improvement are requested." Improvements are requested, and that is what we are providing. IRC is an old, outdated, broken protocol. Why shouldn't someone try to make it better?
| Quote: | | I agre with DJCrash on the fact that if these major changes are going to be make, they should be done in a steady fashion so that thing work out the way they should |
And that is exactly what we are trying to do! In fact, I'm currently working on two RFCs to try and standardize more things for IRC. I am attempting to introduce a standard method for protocol negotiation over IRC. This would allow new features to be added without breaking any clients, and allowing individual users to decide whether they want the new features. Think of it like this, instead of the admin deciding, "I don't want & = +a," instead each individual user gets to make the decision. However, not one single other IRCd has come on board to try and improve my proposal. I'm doing my best to try and get a standard for IRC, but no one else wants to join in.
| Quote: | | So if their are going to be major changes to unreal the new version should be 4.0 instead of 3.3 and at least make it so that with all the major changes you do make, you can enable or disable every one of them in config.h , because some people hate major sudden changes and so that they can keep the oper, user, and channel modes. |
Major sudden changes, that's a term I've never heard to describe Unreal3.2! In fact, the old joke was that Unreal 3.2 would be released in July of 2017. It took us 3 years and 4 months to make 3.2. I don't call that a "sudden" change.
| Quote: | | Ad if other ones are going to be added it should be up to the network to enable or disable them (including Protection, Founder, etc... Modes). This would make it so that a Newibe could set up there server while the more advanced server Admins can play around with there settings and not feel restricted. |
You will notice that this is 100% configurable. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
