|
|
| Author |
Message |
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
 Posted: Apr 07, 2004 9:56am Post subject: My conclusions about ircd |
 |
|
I have used them both, i mainly like Bahamut, but what is wrong with UnrealIRCd, oh yeah, the name sais it all ?
Unrealircd is quite stable even Dalnet could run it or even Qnet (would be nice if they used it)
they can both handle many users.
Yes Unreal does use a litle more bandwith, but what do you get with it ?
u get more features, bahamut is more like a plain ircd, lets say like the original ircd against UnrealIRCd.
if i had started to modify UnrealIRCd insted of bahamut, then i would use unrealircd, but there is so much work on coding, so i would not 
Conclution:
some like Unreal and some like *Bahamut, this war will never end, becuase we keep coming with new "stuff" against.
ONE thing i can say, UnrealIRCd is the IRCd with most activity with the coding, nice work there.
e.g i asked for the channelmodes +a & + q and what happened, they are built in now.
Dont work too hard on the IRCd, but keep up the GOOD work |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
uchat
Idler
Joined: 17 Mar 2004
Posts: 335
|
| Posted: Apr 07, 2004 5:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
It makes no sence to argue an opinion, they seldom ever change anyway. So why bother?
If you like Bahamut ... great
If you like Unreal ... great
If you like both .. great
If you hate both .. great
They both have pros .. they both have cons. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Julia
none
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Posts: 17
|
| Posted: Aug 15, 2004 9:47am Post subject: |
|
|
the best ircd is the one your guru uses
the best linux distribution is the one your linux guru uses
....
everyone have their own conclusions. some stick with one ircd
some constantly in a search, some code their own from scratch, some take the best from
everything they find and make their point-of-view-ircd |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mentor
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 74
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Aug 22, 2004 3:56am Post subject: Re: My conclusions about ircd |
|
|
| DjMadness- wrote: | | I have used them both, i mainly like Bahamut, but what is wrong with UnrealIRCd, oh yeah, the name sais it all ? |
I fail to see the point in comparing these two ircd's. They're both maintained by two different teams, and were built with different needs and end users in mind.
| Quote: |
Unrealircd is quite stable even Dalnet could run it or even Qnet (would be nice if they used it)
they can both handle many users.
Yes Unreal does use a litle more bandwith, but what do you get with it ?
u get more features, bahamut is more like a plain ircd, lets say like the original ircd against UnrealIRCd. |
Bandwidth is no issue to be taken lightly, ecspecially when your going to be serving a larger userbase. IMO (and we all have them), is UnrealIRCd is not practical for large scale networks for this very reason.
And again, Bahamut and UnrealIRCd are completely two different ircds -- one is designed specifically for DALnet's needs, and the other trys to appeal to many as possible.
| Quote: |
if i had started to modify UnrealIRCd insted of bahamut, then i would use unrealircd, but there is so much work on coding, so i would not |
Ok.
| Quote: |
Conclution:
some like Unreal and some like *Bahamut, this war will never end, becuase we keep coming with new "stuff" against. |
I don't see it as a war, just a differing of taste and opinions. Simply use the ircd you want to.
| Quote: |
ONE thing i can say, UnrealIRCd is the IRCd with most activity with the coding, nice work there.
e.g i asked for the channelmodes +a & + q and what happened, they are built in now.
Dont work too hard on the IRCd, but keep up the GOOD work |
Don't measure *coding activity* by features. Bahamut's coding team works just as hard (if not harder) at coding, debugging, etc, as the UnrealIRCd team. Also, just because your requests aren't honored doesn't mean activity is on the decline -- either your suggestion was shot down (most likely for good reasons) or scheduled to be implemented in a future release.
The great thing is, we have a choice of ircd's to choose from nowadays. And if you fail to find one to your liking, your always free to code your own. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 22, 2004 9:01am Post subject: |
|
|
Hmm stupid forum told me there was an error posting, but then posted it anyway!
Last edited by codemastr on Aug 22, 2004 9:02am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 22, 2004 9:02am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | Bandwidth is no issue to be taken lightly, ecspecially when your going to be serving a larger userbase. IMO (and we all have them), is UnrealIRCd is not practical for large scale networks for this very reason. |
People are saying Unreal uses more bandwidth like it is a fact. Well I ask, please show me proof of this? Unreal actually have an incredibly efficient protocol as far as bandwidth is concerned. Unreal takes advantage of a "tokenized" command system, it uses an SJOIN system that is more efficient than those used by any other IRCd. It uses a "numeric server" system to reduce the length of server names, it uses a NICK command extension to combine several commands into a single command (NICK MODE SETHOST all in one), it has the UMODE2 protocol to reduce the size of the MODE command. Unreal also supports the ziplink protocol to allow compression between servers. The only bandwidth saving technology I'm aware of that Unreal doesn't support is "numeric nicknames" and that is on the way. Unreal also does a great deal to save bandwidth that other servers do not. For example, there is the +f channel mode. It can stop floods automatically. There are numerous other flood controls in place to stop floods. The only thing that would really make Unreal use more bandwidth is encryption. However, that is not unique to Unreal, other IRCds support it. Even bahamut supports it for server<->server connections. But if that is bothersome to you, the solution is rather simple, turn off encryption. Regardless of which IRCd implements encryption, it is always going to use more bandwidth than unencrypted traffic, that is assuming the encryption is strong enough to resist attack.
If you are going to talk about Unreal being a bandwidth hog, provide proof. And if you do know of places where Unreal is unefficient bandwidth-wise, let me know and I will do my best to correct them.
I agree, bandwidth is something that needs to be conserved, and I do my best to try and make Unreal as bandwidth efficient as possible, however, when people talk in generalities and never provide any specific examples, it neither proves there is a problem, nor does it allow anyone to ever correct it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
katsklaw
Guru
Joined: 28 Jun 2004
Posts: 1122
|
| Posted: Aug 22, 2004 9:37am Post subject: |
|
|
| Julia wrote: | the best ircd is the one your guru uses
the best linux distribution is the one your linux guru uses
|
"best" is strictly an opinion, what's "best" for me may not be "best" for you.
the "best" linux distro, in the opinions of the gurus, may not be the "best" for the layman.
"best" is absolutely nothing more than personal preference. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
mentor
Newbie
Joined: 22 Jun 2004
Posts: 74
Location: San Diego, CA
|
| Posted: Aug 22, 2004 5:40pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | Quote: | | Bandwidth is no issue to be taken lightly, ecspecially when your going to be serving a larger userbase. IMO (and we all have them), is UnrealIRCd is not practical for large scale networks for this very reason. |
People are saying Unreal uses more bandwidth like it is a fact. Well I ask, please show me proof of this? Unreal actually have an incredibly efficient protocol as far as bandwidth is concerned. Unreal takes advantage of a "tokenized" command system, it uses an SJOIN system that is more efficient than those used by any other IRCd. It uses a "numeric server" system to reduce the length of server names, it uses a NICK command extension to combine several commands into a single command (NICK MODE SETHOST all in one), it has the UMODE2 protocol to reduce the size of the MODE command. Unreal also supports the ziplink protocol to allow compression between servers. The only bandwidth saving technology I'm aware of that Unreal doesn't support is "numeric nicknames" and that is on the way. Unreal also does a great deal to save bandwidth that other servers do not. For example, there is the +f channel mode. It can stop floods automatically. There are numerous other flood controls in place to stop floods. The only thing that would really make Unreal use more bandwidth is encryption. However, that is not unique to Unreal, other IRCds support it. Even bahamut supports it for server<->server connections. But if that is bothersome to you, the solution is rather simple, turn off encryption. Regardless of which IRCd implements encryption, it is always going to use more bandwidth than unencrypted traffic, that is assuming the encryption is strong enough to resist attack.
|
I'll retract my statement -- it wasn't smart of me to make such generalizations, as I haven't used UnrealIRCd in quite sometime in a production enviroment. I was going purely off of past experiences. I guess this gives me a reason to download the latest release of UnrealIRCd and do so experimenting. Should I find bandwidth leaks, etc. you'll be the first to know. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Dr-Voodo
Eleet
Joined: 07 Nov 2003
Posts: 535
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Aug 23, 2004 1:51am Post subject: I have no problem |
|
|
| I have no problem using Unreal, Ultimate, Bahamut or any other, except I like Bahamut better since its more easier to use, more stable and most of all the opers don't have to much control like in Unreal. I have been oper on network running Unreal and beleive me it ain't fun when someone with less access then me can remove me from the oper list when I was a network admin and him was a services admin. So that is why I like Bahamut better, not because its just easiser but because its more safe. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
aquanight
Lurker
Joined: 14 Jun 2004
Posts: 118
Location: Boise, ID
|
| Posted: Aug 23, 2004 12:57pm Post subject: Re: I have no problem |
|
|
| Dr-Voodo wrote: | | I have been oper on network running Unreal and beleive me it ain't fun when someone with less access then me can remove me from the oper list when I was a network admin and him was a services admin. |
Not sure what you mean but trust your opers  . If you can't trust 'em, don't oline 'em  . |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
w00t
Eleet
Joined: 09 Jun 2004
Posts: 699
Location: Nowra, Australia
|
| Posted: Aug 23, 2004 5:45pm Post subject: |
|
|
Besides that, unless they had shell access, they shouldn't have been able to remove you.
There are ways and means of fixing that kind of problem |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Aug 24, 2004 11:18am Post subject: |
|
|
| Quote: | | I have been oper on network running Unreal and beleive me it ain't fun when someone with less access then me can remove me from the oper list when I was a network admin and him was a services admin. |
Well Unreal doesn't have an "oper list" so I don't know what you are talking about. The only way to remove oper access is either by using OperServ's RAW command to use SVSMODE, or by having shell access. And both of those problems will still exist in Bahamut. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GeniusDex
Lurker
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Posts: 150
|
| Posted: Nov 05, 2004 1:33pm Post subject: |
|
|
(Note: this whole post has to be read as 'in my opinion')
UnrealIRCd allows you to control your users in about any way you want, Bahamut will allow them to have a conversation without any hassle or moderation by the IRCd. If you have a general net, there's usually no need to, for example, censor certain words. If your net specializes in, for example, children, it can come in quite handy to censor abusive words, so the children will have a peaceful, good chat. You have enough accesslevels to be able to control the kids in there in about any way you want, but most of the time those things are only "nice but not needed" on regular IRC nets. They're there to chat, not to be censored.
Conclusion: both IRCd's have their own uses, pros, and cons, but UnrealIRCd is imo greatly overrated as 'the best IRCd for whatever situation'... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
nenolod
Idler
Joined: 23 Jan 2004
Posts: 335
Location: A box!
|
| Posted: Nov 05, 2004 1:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
| GeniusDex wrote: | (Note: this whole post has to be read as 'in my opinion')
UnrealIRCd allows you to control your users in about any way you want, Bahamut will allow them to have a conversation without any hassle or moderation by the IRCd. If you have a general net, there's usually no need to, for example, censor certain words. If your net specializes in, for example, children, it can come in quite handy to censor abusive words, so the children will have a peaceful, good chat. You have enough accesslevels to be able to control the kids in there in about any way you want, but most of the time those things are only "nice but not needed" on regular IRC nets. They're there to chat, not to be censored.
Conclusion: both IRCd's have their own uses, pros, and cons, but UnrealIRCd is imo greatly overrated as 'the best IRCd for whatever situation'... |
For instance, ShadowIRCd has swear filtering, but it is as easily disabled as removing an include. It might even be removed in 3.5, as most networks running Shadow don't even use it. (it was a requested feature in the first place, and can go back to being a requested feature as far as I am concerned.) |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Nov 07, 2004 5:39pm Post subject: |
|
|
| codemastr wrote: | | Quote: | | Bandwidth is no issue to be taken lightly, ecspecially when your going to be serving a larger userbase. IMO (and we all have them), is UnrealIRCd is not practical for large scale networks for this very reason. |
People are saying Unreal uses more bandwidth like it is a fact. Well I ask, please show me proof of this? Unreal actually have an incredibly efficient protocol as far as bandwidth is concerned. Unreal takes advantage of a "tokenized" command system, it uses an SJOIN system that is more efficient than those used by any other IRCd. It uses a "numeric server" system to reduce the length of server names, it uses a NICK command extension to combine several commands into a single command (NICK MODE SETHOST all in one), it has the UMODE2 protocol to reduce the size of the MODE command. Unreal also supports the ziplink protocol to allow compression between servers. The only bandwidth saving technology I'm aware of that Unreal doesn't support is "numeric nicknames" and that is on the way. Unreal also does a great deal to save bandwidth that other servers do not. For example, there is the +f channel mode. It can stop floods automatically. There are numerous other flood controls in place to stop floods. The only thing that would really make Unreal use more bandwidth is encryption. However, that is not unique to Unreal, other IRCds support it. Even bahamut supports it for server<->server connections. But if that is bothersome to you, the solution is rather simple, turn off encryption. Regardless of which IRCd implements encryption, it is always going to use more bandwidth than unencrypted traffic, that is assuming the encryption is strong enough to resist attack.
If you are going to talk about Unreal being a bandwidth hog, provide proof. And if you do know of places where Unreal is unefficient bandwidth-wise, let me know and I will do my best to correct them.
I agree, bandwidth is something that needs to be conserved, and I do my best to try and make Unreal as bandwidth efficient as possible, however, when people talk in generalities and never provide any specific examples, it neither proves there is a problem, nor does it allow anyone to ever correct it. |
sorry there codemastr, was not to offend you in any way.
About the bandwidth thing, i have never noticed this my self, was just in fact saying what i have been told. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
