Seeking a beta-tester that knows how the hell IRC works.

spung · none Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Posts: 12

Do you know which numeric ERR_YOUREBANNEDCREEP is by heart? Do you know the exact format of SJOIN? Do you know what IRCX is? Have you ever fought off waves of hundreds of drones, defending your network's glory by scripting a bot using nothing more than mIRC socket scripts and a C/N line? Have you read (and live by) the Tao of IRC? Do you know what a "numbered channel" is (was) and what negative numbers mean? Do you know what /JOIN 0 does what it does? Have you ever telnetted into a network as a server and known what you were doing?
Are you sick of the hundreds of clones of heartless, passionless IRCd's that look and feel almost exactly alike, with the only difference being what the OPERS can do, with no emphasis on the option the USERS have? Have you ever looked at some NOTICE or numeric that an ircd spit out at you and thought to yourself "thats a completely stupid way of doing things"? Have you ever thought to yourself that there was an easier way of doing things that DIDNT require "services" to be a seperate program, with a seperate database, simply reversing the IRCd's decisions on who to give access to?

If you answered yes to most of these questions, then you're just like me, and if you want to help me create the next stage of IRC evolution, the next monumental release of an IRC server, the greatest thing since DALnet figured out that they could let people "own" channels by hooking a perl script up to a server port, then IM me on AIM (SpungSurrola) or /msg me on IRC (spung on DALnet).

Together we can change this monotony known as the dull world of IRC.

PingBad

braindigitalis · Idler Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 443 Location: IRC

xptek · none Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4

Interesting questions, Olene.

Good luck!

nenolod · Idler Joined: 23 Jan 2004 Posts: 357 Location: A box!

http://i13.tinypic.com/33278kz.gif

I like how it goes from 43% to 36% in the progress indicator. Does this one run .NET too?

katsklaw · Posted: Dec 06, 2006 6:27pm Post subject:

Personally I don't see what all the archaic questions have to do with a revolutionary new irc daemon. Most of the crap you rattled off is so obsolete that I doubt that more than a small hand full of ircds still use it. But in an odd way I'm surprised (and relieved) you didn't mention the SUMMON command, at least it appears in IRC2.

Not to mention that to be truly different and the "next stage of IRC evolution", you would have to toss the RFC out the window (like most ircd coders have done anyway), which would make your archaic version 1.0 line of questioning a moot point. To me that's like saying "IF you know how to make a wagon wheel, you can help me design the next Ferrari".

If you want to truly do the next evolution thing, you should ask about new stuff that was never in IRC that could be integrated such as clients with a built in video conferencing or remote desktop abilities and stay away from the crap that hasn't been used in 15 years or used by 2-3 networks that no longer exist.

spung · none Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Posts: 12

The problem is that you can't create the next generation of IRC without knowing the history. People know how IRC works, but they don't know WHY. They don't understand what the meaning of 0 in /who 0 or /join 0 is. They don't particularly understand why USER takes 4 parameters. A lot of admins can't even tell you common sense stuff, like what the +/- in RPL_USERHOST means, or what you use TRACE for. The fact of the matter is that the scene has gotten too saturated with people that don't know what they're talking about. People that think that RFC1459 is still a standard for today's IRC. People that don't understand what's syntatical and what's metasyntatical about the protocol, what can be modified without breaking clients, what can't. People don't understand when to use NOTICE and when to create a new numeric. If you look at any of today's IRCd's, you're going to find major problems. I'm not talking about functionality problems, I'm talking about symantics. From the very large problem of services being a crutch for ircd's to hand off staticity to, to the small problems like ircd coders just inventing behavior modifications. The shit has to end.

I'm sick of the porchmonkeys that sit around here, pretending that they're bigshots in IRC just because they have their own fork of a 1988 unix program written in C. You're NOT the owner of DALnet or EFnet. You DON'T run a server with more than a city's population worth of users. You DON'T have the right to criticize projects.

If you're going to sit around and call me "olene", then it only shows how ignorant and sexist you are. Yes, you're right, theres only one female coder in all of the internet. Just because you got trolled by olene into having cybersex, or because you gave her your password, or an o-line, or even just found out that you were played like the gullable rednecks you are, is no reason to be mad at every female that comes your way. While I personally enjoy the fact that she was capable of turning half of the IRC coding community into homosexual hermits, and destroyed your networks, and did whatever else it is she did to make you all hate her so much, I had nothing to do with it. If you're going to insult me because I'm using a superior platform, then go on. You're no better than the trolls in #linux that talk about how Microsoft is an evil evil entity because they actually want to make money. And yes, my IRCd does target the CLR, and yes, my IRCd does run on multiple OS's without any change to the binary, and no, my IRCd probably wouldn't be able to handle the 8,000 users that a standard efnet server has to deal with. But you know why I don't care? Because if you're actually dumb enough to think that you're stupid network with the stupid name (that took you 20 minutes to come up with) is ever going to get 8,000 clients, then you're crazy. I've stress-tested my ircd beyond reasonable expectations. I'm not coding an ircd so it can run on the next efnet. I'm coding it to run my own network on, and because I can. I'm coding it as an exercise, a use of my spare time, and as a mockup for how the next generation of IRC could be, if everyone involved wasn't a major douchebag that has closed-minded thoughts and wet dreams about RFC1459.

RFC1459 can go to medical school, become a plastic surgeon, cut off my tits and suck them from the inside. I really do not wish to discuss IRC with the 2-digit IQ-based idiots that think that a 1991 request for comments is any type of specification for today's IRC. Even IRCnet acknowledged that RFC1459 is junk by obsoleting it with 4 extensions years later.

katsklaw · Posted: Dec 08, 2006 11:17pm Post subject:

You're right that it's important to know the history of IRC to create an ircd. However, lets put things into perspective. One doesn't need to have been around when wheels were made of stone to be successful at making them today with current technologies or materials. Just because a person has never used /part 0 doesn't mean that they know nothing about creating an IRCd. Not to mention that numbered channels existed before RFC1459, which btw only talks about named channels and not numbered channels, being as IRC savy as you pretend to be you would have known that. So /part 0 is not related to the current IRC version at all, thus irrelevent.

I know more about ancient Egypt than most people will ever know about it, but that doesn't make me a pharaoh or even an Egyptian.

If that were true, then no one that has never programmed a computer using ordered punch cards is a real programmer. It's just simply before their time is all.

xptek · none Joined: 20 Jul 2005 Posts: 4

PingBad · Posted: Dec 09, 2006 1:20am Post subject:

Jobe · Posted: Dec 09, 2006 6:40am Post subject:

spung · none Joined: 03 Dec 2006 Posts: 12

braindigitalis · Idler Joined: 22 Sep 2003 Posts: 443 Location: IRC

katsklaw · Posted: Dec 09, 2006 10:56am Post subject:

jilles · none Joined: 22 Jan 2006 Posts: 12