|
|
| Author |
Message |
Willaim
Lurker
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 242
Location: IRC
|
 Posted: Jul 09, 2008 12:38pm Post subject: Sick of the Unreal+Anope hate |
 |
|
I know this is old news, but I recently saw someone posting about a server and not wanting the old "Unreal+Anope". I take offense to this, being a user of this combination for over six years. There is nothing wrong with using this setup as per the following points:
1.) It is very user friendly - Lots of modes and options to help maintain a chat room.
2.) It is rock stable.
3.) It supports lots of users.
4.) It is very easy to setup and maintain.
5.) It provides peace of mind due to the fact you don't have to maintain it, ie: If you don't use custom code, it shouldn't break.
Please refrain from further blasting of this combination as it just makes you look ignorant.
Thanks for your time,
William F. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
RyanWenke
none
Joined: 27 Dec 2006
Posts: 36
|
| Posted: Jul 09, 2008 12:56pm Post subject: |
|
|
| I agree Willaim. Unfortunately people here believe setting up any other IRCd makes their administrative abilities appear smarter, and their network appear "unique". How wrong they are... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Willaim
Lurker
Joined: 27 Jun 2003
Posts: 242
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Jul 09, 2008 1:06pm Post subject: |
|
|
| What makes a network unique is not the software it runs, but the people who chat there and the staff. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouselike
Idler
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Jul 09, 2008 2:41pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Willaim wrote: | | What makes a network unique is not the software it runs, but the people who chat there and the staff. |
I agree with you, but then the software also does have some role to play in a network being unique from others.
What I dont get is people who love unreal either dont use its features or are complately unaware of the features it's packed with.
Anope+Unreal ircd networks are certinally not unique though and never will be as they are basicly the root of all these thousands of networks which exist, they all have the same few users that idle instead of talking, channels full of BotServ bots and neostats running along side for a mesley 20 user network.
What ever happened to plain vanilla ircd's? Putting a bit more effort into setting up services like gnuworld+ircu or ratbox+ratbox services or bahamut+anope not to mention a few?
You honestly think unreal is that good? If so why arnt any of the top 5 networks using them? Its bloated, full of pointless availabilties to the next oper who decides he/she wants a power trip.
and to reply to williams 5 quotes.
1) Yes it is very friendly, infact too friendly and offers to much power to opers which intitally should be dealt with by services, not the ircd.
2) It's rock stable to its potential to which its been tested, id love to see how stable it is on one of the largest 5 networks? lol
3) As above
4) I agree (if you arnt a beginner)
5) EVERY ircd needs maintaining, checking logs, cleaning up the configs, motd alterations / additions etc.
Ignorance is what people make of it, not from a conversation or peice of software and I dont intend to make unrealircd look bad or unsuitable, but it's just getting sick to see so many unrealircd networks. finding a non unreal network once in a while breaks away from this unreal+anope cycle. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jul 09, 2008 5:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
I agree with mouselike, software can have a huge impact on some users. You can't just go by your own tastes when picking software for your network. You are just one of many users that will/may use your network.
While Anope and Unreal are both very flexible as they are modular, there is still a limit to their abilities. Each have their own caveats that modules simply can't overcome due to lack of support in their cores.
Where I don't agree with mouselike is that Unreal can indeed be configured to be just as basic as bahamut or ratbox because of it's modularity. Unreal 3.3 will be even more flexible (if it's ever released). I personally have a very slightly modified version of Unreal 3.3 (found in svn) that would be the same as Bahamut + ssl + hostmangling + regex spamfilters + Channel forwarding (all of which are useful features). There are no vanity oper levels, no oper overrides ... etc. An UNMODIFIED version of Unreal can be configured nearly as close as my modified version can be .. it's all in how you configure it. Which I'll be more than happy to set-up a tutorial on how to strip down Unreal for those that are interested (which in my opinion will be very few people if any).
That said, the main problem with the thousands of Unreal/Anope networks just simply do not tweak their software, they edit the configs barely enough to link and then call themselves Network Administrators. *THAT* is where the software becomes mundane and unexciting to those that care about what software a network is running. If more Admins actually did something with their config files we wouldn't have so many networks with the exact same set-up, except different names.
To those that say that it's the staff that makes the network, I agree that staff can impact ones experience .. but please understand that if you run Net1 .. The staff on Net's10-400 are just as friendly so users can always go there instead of your net .. so it's not just the staff that makes the network either .. it's a combination of EVERYTHING, software and how it's configured, unique features (custom commands/modules) as well as friendly staff, super fast low latency connections and the fact that the staff actually know something about IRC and are experienced prior to taking on a role like NetAdmin. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouselike
Idler
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Jul 10, 2008 1:22pm Post subject: |
|
|
| katsklaw wrote: | | Where I don't agree with mouselike is that Unreal can indeed be configured to be just as basic as bahamut or ratbox because of it's modularity. |
I totally agree with you, but then my guess is you ask most of these networks and their server admins and i bet most of them wouldnt have a clue how to strip out/down modules in unreal, the likes of me, you (klaw) and the few others would know how todo this whislt the others would be pondering wtf they do  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jul 10, 2008 3:04pm Post subject: |
|
|
| mouselike wrote: | | katsklaw wrote: | | Where I don't agree with mouselike is that Unreal can indeed be configured to be just as basic as bahamut or ratbox because of it's modularity. |
I totally agree with you, but then my guess is you ask most of these networks and their server admins and i bet most of them wouldnt have a clue how to strip out/down modules in unreal, the likes of me, you (klaw) and the few others would know how todo this whislt the others would be pondering wtf they do |
Which is why I offered to write the tutorial, however I will not do so unless people express an interest in actually reading it, which I really doubt they do.
You and I have basically said the same things, I think the part I disagree with (and I don't think I've effectively expressed) is that people shouldn't hate Unreal because of the often poor choices it's users make in regards to it's usage/configuration. It's further not Unreal's fault because 80% of the tweaks I'd include in removing the bloat are included in the official Unreal IRCd documentation that seldom gets read. Where Unreal IS at fault is their choices as to what to enable by default and what not to enable by default. My experience with it is that they enable everything by default and rely on the user to read how to disable the features. Prime example is Unreal's built in ntp client is enabled by default .. sorry bad move .. The reason that's bad is now Unreal is ntp driven and services most likely is not. So if installed on a system without ntpd running, Unreal creates an offset which is more harmful than helpful .. at least without the ntp, unreal and services would agree on what time it is. not to mention that you just created a TS desync on a localhost connection. Additionally if Unreal is run in an ntp enabled box, then Unreal doesn't need to have timesync enabled. That said there are more scenarios where timesync causes problems than there are where timesync solves problems, yet Unreal has it enabled by default. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouselike
Idler
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Jul 10, 2008 3:36pm Post subject: |
|
|
I never mentioned that people shouldnt hate unreal and if i did i never inteded too, I just dislike it for its bloated apperance it gives and even though it can be stripped it then offers no more than a stock ircd like bahamut does which I would glady chose over unreal, others will glady disagree with this I know but thats peoples views.
What bugs me more than anything is people go to unreal becuase its common, its widely used and unexperience oper a can share his power tripping commands with unexperienced oper b, but they have yet failed to discover it seems other ircd's exist that would quite easily forfil their needs without the aid of removing modules, custom coding or alterations. Ultimate is a good example even though its development is slow and uses old style configs, its stability and features are well considered, it's commands to which may seem abusive on unreal are limited or dont exist in a foul manor, inspircd which is new to the scene, gained a quick popularity uses modules etc, just some of the loads of ircd's many people have failed to discover.
To sum up what i said...
I dont hate unreal, wish admins would look at the alternatives. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jul 10, 2008 4:31pm Post subject: |
|
|
wise admins will look at all options and choose what is best for their individual network and not solely depend on the rantings of a few old schoolers
Personally I'll use a stripped version of Unreal before Bahamut simply because of the constructive things Unreal has that Bahamut never will have. Such as SSL for servers and clients, channel redirection, regex spam filters, built-in per channel specific flood protection and many more things that Unreal can provide for the overall safety of the network that Bahamut just simply won't have.
Bahamut is for DALnet sized networks, not your average sized network. Being a smaller network has it's advantages because you can spend more overhead per user and still have a nearly vanity free, not too many frills network. Which by the way, over head as well as the fact that big networks can hand pick their development team is why none of them use Unreal, it's not because Unreal may seem bloated. they have the man power to write their own ircd's and to which they all have.
I agree most choose Unreal for the wrong reasons, which is sad .. but it would be equally as sad if everyone was choosing Bahamut, ircu, ratbox ...etc .. for the wrong reasons as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Katlyn
Newbie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Jul 12, 2008 5:15am Post subject: Re: Sick of the Unreal+Anope hate |
|
|
| Willaim wrote: | I know this is old news, but I recently saw someone posting about a server and not wanting the old "Unreal+Anope". I take offense to this, being a user of this combination for over six years. There is nothing wrong with using this setup as per the following points:
1.) It is very user friendly - Lots of modes and options to help maintain a chat room.
2.) It is rock stable.
3.) It supports lots of users.
4.) It is very easy to setup and maintain.
5.) It provides peace of mind due to the fact you don't have to maintain it, ie: If you don't use custom code, it shouldn't break.
Please refrain from further blasting of this combination as it just makes you look ignorant.
Thanks for your time,
William F. |
Being one of the largest networks running Anope & Unreal (although quite heavily modified) we've found that #2, #5 and #3 are not the case.
Although I don't know the technical details about it we've had to re-write alot of the original Anope code for it to be able to cope with a sizable number of users because it was just too inefficient (and apparently quite poorly written).
There are also still countless 'bugs' within Anope itself, although these may have been fixed, such as the ability for a user to evade the session limit by just ghosting one of their sessions (allowing them to connect another two in its replacement)... They can essentially load as many clients on until they reach the ircd's limit.
There's also a bug that we have yet been able to identify and fix which also allows a user to connect large numbers of clients without OperServ preventing them (which they seem to be doing with a mIRC cloning script).
Anope/Unreal is probably great for smaller-sized networks, but unless you know how to maintain the code and fix any problems you encounter yourself it really isn't an option for larger networks, because unlike what you said, you can't just rely on the fact that it's so popular and widely used for it to be stable and maintenance-free.
As a sidenote, however, Unreal doesn't have much problem with handling larger numbers of users at all ...the myth that it isn't stable when handling thousands of users just isn't true (although the CPU usage does go up quite considerably, but for us that is partly due to some modifications we have made).
- Katlyn |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mouselike
Idler
Joined: 09 Dec 2003
Posts: 258
|
| Posted: Jul 12, 2008 1:31pm Post subject: |
|
|
Katlyn you hit the nail on the head!
Nice post.
btw what network do you oper/run on? Sounds a nice network. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jul 12, 2008 2:08pm Post subject: Re: Sick of the Unreal+Anope hate |
|
|
| Katlyn wrote: | | Willaim wrote: | I know this is old news, but I recently saw someone posting about a server and not wanting the old "Unreal+Anope". I take offense to this, being a user of this combination for over six years. There is nothing wrong with using this setup as per the following points:
1.) It is very user friendly - Lots of modes and options to help maintain a chat room.
2.) It is rock stable.
3.) It supports lots of users.
4.) It is very easy to setup and maintain.
5.) It provides peace of mind due to the fact you don't have to maintain it, ie: If you don't use custom code, it shouldn't break.
Please refrain from further blasting of this combination as it just makes you look ignorant.
Thanks for your time,
William F. |
Being one of the largest networks running Anope & Unreal (although quite heavily modified) we've found that #2, #5 and #3 are not the case.
Although I don't know the technical details about it we've had to re-write alot of the original Anope code for it to be able to cope with a sizable number of users because it was just too inefficient (and apparently quite poorly written).
There are also still countless 'bugs' within Anope itself, although these may have been fixed, such as the ability for a user to evade the session limit by just ghosting one of their sessions (allowing them to connect another two in its replacement)... They can essentially load as many clients on until they reach the ircd's limit.
There's also a bug that we have yet been able to identify and fix which also allows a user to connect large numbers of clients without OperServ preventing them (which they seem to be doing with a mIRC cloning script).
Anope/Unreal is probably great for smaller-sized networks, but unless you know how to maintain the code and fix any problems you encounter yourself it really isn't an option for larger networks, because unlike what you said, you can't just rely on the fact that it's so popular and widely used for it to be stable and maintenance-free.
As a sidenote, however, Unreal doesn't have much problem with handling larger numbers of users at all ...the myth that it isn't stable when handling thousands of users just isn't true (although the CPU usage does go up quite considerably, but for us that is partly due to some modifications we have made).
- Katlyn |
Bugs don't automatically announce themselves to their developers. So You are really doing everyone else in the IRC community a disservice by not reporting them. I know for a fact they haven't been reported because I'm on the Anope Team and can see all bug reports.
You can't sit there say Anope is too buggy so we fixed it and then bash Anope because bugs you failed to report were never fixed. Session limiting is optional in the first place because anyone that knows anything about how IRC works knows that max per IP is best handled in the ircd and not services. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Katlyn
Newbie
Joined: 30 Sep 2006
Posts: 50
|
| Posted: Jul 12, 2008 3:16pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'm fairly sure it was reported - but the bug is so glaringly obvious it's rather odd that it hasn't been noticed by the dev team itself...
Edit: And I wasn't bashing Anope because you didn't fix the bugs, I was just using that as an example as to why people can't just rely on the fact that it's so popular/widely used for it to be stable/bug-free. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1114
|
| Posted: Jul 12, 2008 7:45pm Post subject: |
|
|
"bug free" is a term used when no bugs are reported.
I found your bug report, it was reported and fixed 4 years ago as bug #229 and fixed in version 1.7.7 (r452), Our current version is 1.7.21 (r1397) Which means that 945 revisions ago your bug was valid. It was opened on 11/21/2004 and closed 2/2/05. Which was before my time and explains why I've never seen it.
If you have a more recent bug in the unaltered Anope Core which would be relevant to this conversation .. I'm all ears.
BTW, Rizon (Ranked #8) uses a possibly modified version of Anope to which I can only recall 1-2 bug reports from them and at a population of 15,000 users. I'm sure Anope can handle your average size network just fine. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
