|
|
| Author |
Message |
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
 Posted: Jun 20, 2004 11:38am Post subject: |
 |
|
| Ashen wrote: | I *think* what gives Unreal its easy to install reputation is that:
1) it uses a BIND-style config file.
(this is not unique, other ircds are now doing this, but Unreal did it awhile ago)
2) some shell providers preinstall it
3) it has a lot more documentation then some other ircds.
I think these things are what give it the 'easy to install' rep that it has.
I agree with uchat though - all software is getting easier to use and Unreal isn't especially easy now when compared with other big ircds.
-Ashen |
This is my entire point. Unreal isn't any easier nor harder to install than any other IRCd. If you count the steps it takes to install Unreal you will come up with one step less than with say Bahamut. HOWEVER, the Unreal ircd.conf file is more involved that most others. So it may have less steps but a harder config file. Besides the masses want easier, prettier stuff. So don't hate someone or something that is smart enough to give it to them ... It seems jealousy is at play here, sliq and djcrash are just mad because they didn't think of it first. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 20, 2004 1:42pm Post subject: |
|
|
Heh, this thread is good for a laugh! What have we learned today?
Unreal gets you expelled.
New versions of Windows are eye candy.
Lets see, Unreal gets people expelled. I suppose if he had installed Apache on his PC, then Apache is bad too? It's pretty easy to setup as well. Why is it Unreal's fault someone decided to ignore the manual? Consider, I get into a car. I have no idea how to drive. I smash into someone and kill them. Who is responsible? By your definition, the car manufacturer is responsible. They should do everything possible to make sure I have the proper skills necessary to drive a car. However, every single other person on this planet would say I am responsible. I got into a car without knowing what I was doing, and I killed someone. So why is Unreal responsible when someone decides not to read the manual?
Newer versions of Windows are just prettier, and less stable.
So Win95 is more stable than WinXP? Anyone who thinks that is a fool. If you think newer OSes are just eye candy, why even use Windows? I mean, a GUI is, by definition, eye candy. It is designed to make things "easier." So why not just use DOS? Hell, why use DOS at all? Why not go back to a punchcard based system? If you had to go and buy punchcards, that would certainly prevent idiots from using it. But why stop there? Why not go back to when you had to build hardware to add new features? If you had to be an electronic engineer to run a computer, it would certainly stop idiots from doing all this stuff! Lets be serious OK? The whole point of creating computers was to make things easier. So why shouldn't the software try to make things easier too? Plus, having easy software prevents problems. Lets go back to the car example. Say we have 2 cars. One, all you need to do is press a button and it gets you to where you want to go. The other, requires you to do everything. Manually shift geats, turn the wheels, manually power the wheels, etc. Which one has a better chance of there being an accident? The latter. You have much more stuff you need to do. Therefore, it's easy to lose concentration. If it is easy to drive, then you can do it better. Same with running an IRCd. If it is super hard to configure, there is more chance you will set it up wrong.
If you hate Unreal, that's fine. But be realistic! What's next, Unreal causes world hunger? Unreal created cancer? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Jun 20, 2004 3:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
What's next, Unreal causes world hunger? Unreal created cancer?
|
<sarcasm>
*gasp* I had no idea! .. how could you?! LOL
</sarcasm> |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Jun 20, 2004 6:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
Why does everyone hate Unreal so much? Of course I may not like some of its features, but I don't hate it. I actually value one nice feature this software has -- the spamfilter.
Some peoples' logic is far beyond my understanding.. especially when people say that UnrealIRCd was liable for the kid getting in trouble.
As you can see, people may be getting less and less intelligent. Take for example, mosquito coils. Why do they have a caution telling people not to touch the lit end? I see the same thing on toaster ovens, where the words on the front door says, "WARNING: Do not touch element until fully cooled" -- Like come on! Who would actually do such a thing? Well.. they put that warning on there for a reason; So people can't sue them. Pretty sad.. isn't it? Well that's where this world is going. If something happens, sue sue sue! Your shell provider is down for an hour - time to sue! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Guest
Guest
|
| Posted: Jun 20, 2004 9:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | What's next, Unreal causes world hunger? |
well i use Unreal and im hungry.
coincidence? i think not! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeniusDex
Lurker
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Jun 21, 2004 4:58am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | - The new "block" style configuration format.
We didn't create this, in fact, our code is heavily based on the code from Comstud IRCd. However, you'll notice that now most IRCds use similar configuration files. Hybrid, Bahamut, and ircu have all decided it's a better way to go. |
It's certainly not new indeed, it's existed longer in various other programs (like bind, apt, etc), but i must agree it's more readable and maintainable then the lines-sytem.
| Quote: | - operoverride
The basics of oper override have existed for a long time. Since Dreamforge a /samode command has existed. And like it or hate it, this is catching on. Bahamut 1.8.x adds a /sajoin command that allows an oper to join any channel, regardless of modes. |
Small note, the /sajoin already exists in 1.4.36. At least it does on my net and i can't recall adding it myself 
| Quote: | - module support
Well this one wasn't really taken from another IRCd, more from other programs, like Apache. But now, it's everywhere! Hybrid and Bahamut both have very robust module systems, and I'm sure this is something that will appear in more and more IRCds over time. |
I agree, modules are good. They allow a stable, clean core product, and the user can add modules like he wants. The core itself will be very fast, but won't have much features. It's good to let the users make that balance.
| Quote: | But there is a good reason why we add more stuff than other IRCds, we have a much larger userbase. Bahamut, though in use by many servers, is designed for DALnet. I'm sure they listen to users' requests, but the main user is DALnet. If DALnet wants something, it gets added. If DALnet doesn't want it, then it isn't added. Same with ircu, and Hybrid. They are designed primarily for a single network. Unreal is different. It has no home-base network that it is designed for. It is designed to meet the needs of as many people as possible. As a result, we add more things because our users have a diverse set of needs. Then, as these features catch on in Unreal and are deemed, "useful," they make their way into other IRCds. You can see it beginning now. I've seen numerous Bahamut and Hybrid users who have asked the coders of those IRCds to add something similar to Unreal's spamfilter system. At the moment, they say no, but I don't think that will last forever. Once the idea is proven, it will be more widely used. Right now people still think the goal is censorship, it isn't. The goal is to stop spam and viruses, and I think that is something everyone wants.
|
Oh i agree, that's what i want. The problem is that scanning messages makes IRCd's slow. It could very well be implemented as a module...
I don't agree with most of unreal's features, i wouldn't want them on my net, but perhaps other users want them.... or get them shoved in their mouth ("I want to run an IRCd!" "Use UnrealIRCd!") |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 21, 2004 10:46pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Oh i agree, that's what i want. The problem is that scanning messages makes IRCd's slow. It could very well be implemented as a module... |
You'll notice we are moving more and more things to modules. Almost all of Unreal's commands are in modules, and we are beginning to move other things. 3.2.1 will feature a modulized host cloaking system. This will allow users to create their own host cloaking algorithms, or even have no cloaking at all (by making an algorithm that simply returns the original host). Over time, more and more things will move from the core to modules. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
null
none
Joined: 21 Jun 2004
Posts: 26
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 4:33am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | or even have no cloaking at all |
isn't that what umode x does? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeniusDex
Lurker
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 4:55am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | This will allow users to create their own host cloaking algorithms, or even have no cloaking at all (by making an algorithm that simply returns the original host). |
should i mention that just disabling the module shouldn't cloak? if i need a module to disable functionality, then what's the point of modules? imo the core should function without any required modules, unless you set it up to have socket engine modules, irc protocol modules, etc. from what i've heard of it so far i cannot conclude that's happening yet, so i think that just leaving it out when you load no module for it is best
i might get poort from giving my 2 cents everywhere some day... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 11:24am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: |
should i mention that just disabling the module shouldn't cloak? if i need a module to disable functionality, then what's the point of modules? imo the core should function without any required modules, unless you set it up to have socket engine modules, irc protocol modules, etc. from what i've heard of it so far i cannot conclude that's happening yet, so i think that just leaving it out when you load no module for it is best |
We see cloaking as a requirement. It is an integral part of the Unreal protocol. Hence why the module is required. If you don't load any cloaking modules, Unreal will not start. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 695
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Jun 22, 2004 6:50pm Post subject: |
|
|
codemastr, GeniusDex:
I would like to congradulate both of you for offering such well thought out posts. I thoroughly enjoyed this read. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeniusDex
Lurker
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Jun 25, 2004 4:31am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | We see cloaking as a requirement. It is an integral part of the Unreal protocol. Hence why the module is required. If you don't load any cloaking modules, Unreal will not start. |
The only thing required should be rfc1459 support if you're strict. Ok, i'm not that strict, but things like cloaking shouldn't be core as not everyone wants them. Why not implement a simple "no cloak module" into the core and allow other modules to replace that cloak 'module' with their own? Much clear in my opinion
And yes, you can say "if you don't want the cloaking choose another ircd". I have chose another ircd, i'm just giving my opinion |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Jun 25, 2004 12:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Ok, i'm not that strict, but things like cloaking shouldn't be core as not everyone wants them. |
Well here is the thing, we view cloaking differently. Consider this, I make guns. Should I offer a gun that doesn't have a safety switch, simply because some people won't want it? I'd say no. Safety is important and should not be neglected simply because some people do not want it.
That's how I view cloaking. It protects the user from unnecessary attack. In my opinion, it should not be up to the admin to decide whether the users should be protected or not. After all, the admin isn't the one who is being attacked, it is the users. So why shouldn't the users be the ones to decide whether they get protection rather than the admin? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
magpie
Idler
Joined: 18 Jan 2004
Posts: 454
Location: Essex, UK
|
| Posted: Jun 25, 2004 4:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
Because the admin provides the server?
By all means use cloaking by default (be it via a configuration line or whatever), but having to load a module to turn it off is just daft. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeniusDex
Lurker
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Jun 29, 2004 11:14am Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | Quote: | | Ok, i'm not that strict, but things like cloaking shouldn't be core as not everyone wants them. |
Well here is the thing, we view cloaking differently. Consider this, I make guns. Should I offer a gun that doesn't have a safety switch, simply because some people won't want it? I'd say no. Safety is important and should not be neglected simply because some people do not want it.
That's how I view cloaking. It protects the user from unnecessary attack. In my opinion, it should not be up to the admin to decide whether the users should be protected or not. After all, the admin isn't the one who is being attacked, it is the users. So why shouldn't the users be the ones to decide whether they get protection rather than the admin? |
I don't really agree on your comparision with the gun, as a gun can kill lives and on irc the worst thing that might happen is that your connection gets DDoSd (in usual spheres, you could use the hostname to get the victim's personal info and beat him to pulp irl, but that never happened as far as i know). The safety on a gun is neccesairy for people's lives, while people should be able to do without their internet for a few hours...
The admin runs the server, so in my opinion the admin should choose wether s/he wants to have the possibility for people to mask their host. I don't want my server to be more vulnurable to attacks because users do stupid things (which is usually the reason for a DDoS). If a user behaves stupid, s/he can cause a DDoS, that's true. If you just act normal you have only a very small chance of getting one targeted against you. In the time i've been on IRC (4-5 years), i've never been target of a DDoS. I've done enough things which could get me a DDoS, but the chance of really getting one is very small for an average user. If you add those chances up for your users (especially on large nets like DALnet), the chance of getting a DDoS against your server or network is a lot bigger.
My view is that the admins pay for the IRC server, and they shouldn't be the victim of the actions of their users. The users need to show a bit of responsibility too, it's not all a paradise what the net gives... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
