Janus

Bertrum · Eleet Joined: 30 Mar 2008 Posts: 573 Location: Venus

It has to be a no from me. My reasoning? I don't like it, it rarely works out well, it is really buggy, it doesn't work properly with a lot of ircds.

D3M0N · Posted: Jun 22, 2011 8:45am Post subject:

But thats the whole reason of this poll... id to get you opinion on if I should keep coding janus and making it better.... or if i should just let the project die completely...

I have plans for janus that are outrageous and can take some time such as fixing bugs, making it link to more ircds, more features, etc... but are possible!

Trixar_za · Posted: Jun 22, 2011 9:38am Post subject:

Bertrum · Eleet Joined: 30 Mar 2008 Posts: 573 Location: Venus

PingBad · Posted: Jun 23, 2011 8:29am Post subject:

It seems to me that Janus was started as a project to bring networks together while they still retained their identities, but that's just my idealogical view at half past two in the AM here...

But, alas, with every noble idea comes the idiot who will ruin it (read: put client bots on large channels just to boost their own numbers artificially).

Janus does have its uses, I will admit however - testlinking between a network and prospective server (or server cluster) is still quite a popular method for auditioning links/mergers, Janus does allow the mergee and merger to intercommunicate and the staff on both sides to measure how the other interacts with their own population and fellow staff members; if the need to bail out presents itself, well Janus links can be dropped and there is no real damage on either side (in theory, at least).

Perhaps the original coder (danieldg) could render his opinion? After all, who else would know his intentions/motivations better than he himself?

Jers · none Joined: 01 Jun 2011 Posts: 1

I think this script works well .. With A Few upgrades it could work great.. I just started using this script a few months ago.. And i have a few networks that our linked a small base of people which was great due to we were able to kill an old mrc based relay for this one that works way better then the mrc based and much more stable.. I have used many differnt types of relays over the years mrc, tcl. But this one works way better then any of the ones i used. one thing i would like to see is a censored part that would be a great thing to have aswell.

katsklaw · Posted: Jul 16, 2011 9:20pm Post subject:

Known · none Joined: 24 Oct 2010 Posts: 1

I voted no as previously pointed out, it only makes your network share users for only specific channels and it boosts your stats when they truly aren't that high.
Yes I know that "stats aren't everything, and the community is more important", however if someone was looking for a link and saw your stats, you could lie to them until it was too late. There are also other ways to share users, which include relaying from one network to another via a IRC bot, or have the users actually join onto your network to talk.
Thats just my $0.02 about the whole Janus Project.

GigIRC · Posted: Jul 19, 2011 2:55am Post subject: IMHO

Hey Forum, This is just my opinion; yet, i feel that if the J-Server is run with stricter rules, ergo terms and conditions and so on and communication between networks j-links admin regarding future links is maintained, then j-linking works very well. I am still a fervent supporter of this software.

N0valyfe · none Joined: 09 Jan 2008 Posts: 20

I think it's good to provide a sort of test-link basis for networks looking at merging, taking on servers or whatever.

I don't think bringing it back can cause any harm, if you can fix the bugs it has then excellent.

VisioN · Newbie Joined: 31 Mar 2011 Posts: 73

While talking about developing Janus , I spoted an issue that should be corrected in the way janus works.

Lets say we have two nets called Net1 and Net2. And both two users have the same nickname "VisioN" registered each one for their net. For the first one that joins the janus linked channel, janus introduces a pseudoclient called "VisioN" on the other net, so the actual user on that network can't use his own nickname if he joins his own network!!

That's why I believe janus core should be altered in a way that it always introduces its pseudoclients in the format of nickaname/server , so that such a conflict never occurs.

Please tell me what you think about it, or if you need more explanation on my argument. Thanks Wink

D3M0N · Posted: Sep 18, 2011 6:30pm Post subject:

There is already a feature in janus called "Forcetag" that will make the nick collisions end.

Back to ur example having Net1 and Net2 and I join Net1 with m nick D3M0N, it will create a psuedoclient on Net2 named D3M0N\Net1 and vis versa for Net2.

katsklaw · Posted: Oct 05, 2011 8:26am Post subject:

Please pardon me while I invoke some necromancy( for those of you that the think 1 month is a long time Smile

)

I think I'd like to change my vote to "yes". This however, still doesn't change my mind as to if I personally will use it. It still has some flaws that are unacceptable to me.

One thing I've always said and even tried to do with CollectiveIRC was to pool like minded networks together so we wouldn't have so many 10 user networks. I think having 50 servers for 200 people was better than 200 networks for 1000 people. I still think fewer nets and more users per net will be better for IRC as a whole.

I think the idea of allowing networks to merge without the admins having to shrink their ePeen is an attractive feature to most younger, less experienced IRC admins and maybe a few of the older ones. It seems that Janus is the closest solution and is at least making an honest attempt at that goal, intentional or not.

Trixar_za · Posted: Oct 05, 2011 4:30pm Post subject:

It's even worse considering I've played necromancer with the whole project too - lol (http://github.com/Trixarian/trix-janus)

Some things can just be done better and others can be corrected. With Janus' integration of git, using something like github makes it even easier to keep it up to date across an InterJanus installation.