Why do servers ban Iphone?
Steve Work
banning "Iphone"? I agree that perhaps Iphone is not the greatest
possible use of net bandwidth, but why do the servers care? Obviously,
the servers are incapable of handling the voice traffic themselves, nor
does "Iphone" rout the voice traffic through them. All Iphone does is
make limited used of irc to establish names/IP adresses pairs. No real
demand on the servers.
Is this due to ignorance on the server ops? Or are the servers just
against the use of Iphone to waste net bandwidth (IMO, rightfully so),
and trying to do something about this problem?
Chris Athans
about IPhone, with the IPhone people. IPhone is a commercial product
that is using servers that are run by people who volunteer their time and
their machine and process for the services. VocalTech (The makers of
IPhone) are making serious profit since they're not required to setup a
net for their product to use and they're not willing to compensate the
Irc Administrators in anyway.
When an IPhone client connects, it takes up a connection to the server
which someone else could use. Servers are limited to the number of
connections they accept so they don't try to "server" more users then
they can handle. VocalTech said they would be putting up a server of
their own so we'll see what happens, but most of the IrcOpers have
already begun to ban them--there's a patch out now to keep them off.
-Chris
--
Chris Athans cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
-= If You're not living life on the edge of the net,
you're taking up too much bandwidth =-
-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
Blipper NY
>From: cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Chris Athans)
>Subject: Re: Why do servers ban Iphone?
>Date: 7 Mar 1995 08:30:28 -0600
I find this whole discussion very interesting.
You say Iphone is making a profit. Probably so (even though the product is
only 49 bucks and they have to pay the programmers, their phone service,
taxes, employees, office expenses, product promotional material, computer
expenses, and so on).
Yet, when I think of all the usual internet software in use (Netscape,
Trumpet, newsreaders, gophers, ftp clients, etc etc) which ALSO charge for
their product (most, at any rate), whether via shareware or commercial
upgrades, I don't hear anyone complaining about those profits.
I think Iphone is one of the best "internet" products I've seen in a long
time. And, it is on the cutting edge of net-technology. Yet, here are all
these elitist IRCops (in my opinion) complaining!
From my point of view, all it looks like to me is a snobbish elitist political
"old boys network" on the internet (ie, IRCops) wanting to keep others out of
their little playground.
I understand this attitude, and I can sympathize with it. BUT, there are
better ways to handle this situation than to "ban" Iphone users (who spent
money buying the s/ware or time downloading the demo like everyone else does
for other software). A dialogue (which I understand is now taking place) with
the IRC gods and the Iphone company (Vocaltec) is a more productive and FAIR
approach.
I've been watching the IRC newsgroups for a long time. I notice how snobby
all the answers are to newbies or confused users. I think that says what the
IRC gods are about.
Helen Trillian Rose
CA> == Chris Athans <cat...@starbase.neosoft.com>
SW> == Steve Work <slw...@netcom.com>
SW> Could someone please enlighten me as to why all the irc servers are
SW> banning "Iphone"?
[question deleted]
CA> Ignorance!??!!??!? We've (IRCOps) have been having a lengthly
CA> discussion about IPhone, with the IPhone people.
[excellent response by Chris Athans deleted]
BN> I find this whole discussion very interesting.
No more than I do. Considering my server (cs-pub.bu.edu) was the first
server on the list of IPhone servers to pick from, and thus lots of people
used it as the default.
BN> You say Iphone is making a profit. Probably so (even though the
BN> product is only 49 bucks and they have to pay the programmers, their
BN> phone service, taxes, employees, office expenses, product promotional
BN> material, computer expenses, and so on).
Yes, but 25,000 copies have been downloaded (and that was as of a couple
of days ago). Even presuming just 1% of those 25000 copies are ever paid
for, that's $12,250. Not exactly a paltry sum for a few days of ftp'ing.
BN> Yet, when I think of all the usual internet software in use
BN> (Netscape, Trumpet, newsreaders, gophers, ftp clients, etc etc) which
BN> ALSO charge for their product (most, at any rate), whether via
BN> shareware or commercial upgrades, I don't hear anyone complaining
BN> about those profits.
These services do not connect to a network like EFnet. Member sites of
EFnet, unlike USENET or ftp, must maintain connections to each other *at
all times*. There's no shutting down after all of the user data has been
passed (as if that ever happens :-). As more and more users join EFnet,
the "connect burst" (chunk of data send to a site when it connects from a
netsplit) grows larger and larger. Last night (before the IPhone patch was
installed, but it was also relatively late, 11pm EST or thereabouts),
iphone users were eating 1.27% of this connect burst. 1.27%! Late at
night! After some servers had already started killing Iphone users on
sight!
BN> From my point of view, all it looks like to me is a snobbish elitist
BN> political "old boys network" on the internet (ie, IRCops) wanting to
BN> keep others out of their little playground.
Look at it from my point of view (I'll take exception to your "old boys"
statement. I am neither old [I'm 23!] nor a boy [take a look at my
name. it doesn't look particularly male]. I'll admit to being an irc old
timer. I've been on irc for 5 years and a couple of months). I run a
server (let's for arguments just talk about cs-pub.bu.edu here). My server
can take about 450-500 connections before it starts refusing any new ones
due to overload. Because my server was getting 30-40 (at a time) Iphone
connections, I had that many *fewer* connections for real text
chatters. EFnet, as it stands, is for *text* chatting. I'm not saying that
voice chatting isn't a good thing either, but I don't think it should be
happening on EFnet *quite simply* because of bandwidth issues!
So I kill off Iphone users. Well, they reconnect! Because the silly IPhone
users don't know that they were killed off by me in a fit. They just think
"duh, my session is dead, let's reconnect".
I'm on the Iphone users mailing list. I've read alt.winsock. Alot of
IPhone users don't even *realize* that they were connecting to a large
(~8000 online at any one time) pre-existing network. They just thought
they were connecting to an IPhone-only site.
If the IPhone *users* didn't need EFnet IRC (and they didn't, since most
of them didn't know about it), then why did Vocaltec *default* to EFnet
irc? Simple: laziness! They could easily have started from day 1 by
setting up their own server(s) and defaulting the clients there. But
instead, they decided not to.
BN> I understand this attitude, and I can sympathize with it. BUT, there
BN> are better ways to handle this situation than to "ban" Iphone users
BN> (who spent money buying the s/ware or time downloading the demo like
BN> everyone else does for other software). A dialogue (which I
BN> understand is now taking place) with the IRC gods and the Iphone
BN> company (Vocaltec) is a more productive and FAIR approach.
I have written to Vocaltec about half a dozen times in the past 5
days. The only response that was received was one mailed to operlist (not
to me personally). The response (which I can forward to anyone who
requests it) was *really lame*! The best line from the mail (written by
Daniel Nissan, VP of Marketing for Vocaltec) is:
|We are very sorry by the reaction of some IRC Managers. The Internet
|Phone was not meant to take advantage of IRC servers without
|permission.
This is great. They want us to believe that they just forgot to ask. Why
do I have a hard time believing them?
25,000 copies downloaded. Can you imagine even 10% of those users on EFnet
irc -- another 2500 users! At any time! From the 9000 we've been teetering
at to well over 11000 in *just one hop*! And again, those 2500 users would
be *oblivious* to EFnet irc!
All I want is for Vocaltec to do what Netcom did. Set up their own server
for their own users! Heck, if they'd asked first, the response would have
been totally different!
BN> I've been watching the IRC newsgroups for a long time. I notice how
BN> snobby all the answers are to newbies or confused users. I think
BN> that says what the IRC gods are about.
If you think IRC ops are gods then you're delusional.
--Helen
--
Helen Trillian Rose <hr...@kei.com, hr...@bu.edu>
Kapor Enterprises, Inc. Check out my homepage! -->
Systems and Networks Administration http://www.kei.com/homepages/hrose.html
I like: DL, WN, VS, Boeing I don't like: NW, HP, Airbus
Blipper NY
>From: thu...@catt.ncsu.edu (Chris)
>Subject: Re: Why do servers ban Iphone?
>>Yet, when I think of all the usual internet software in use (Netscape,
>>Trumpet, newsreaders, gophers, ftp clients, etc etc) which ALSO charge for
>>their product (most, at any rate), whether via shareware or commercial
>>upgrades, I don't hear anyone complaining about those profits.
>Umm that's because these products use each service the way it was intended to
>be used
Ah, another "do it my way or do it no way" approach. SO, as someone else
said, we shouldn't use FAXES on phone lines, and we shouldn't talk voice on
Ham radio since we're using AIR....
Yup, I get your point now. You've certainly convinced me ;-)
>>I think Iphone is one of the best "internet" products I've seen in a long
>>time. And, it is on the cutting edge of net-technology. Yet, here are all
>>these elitist IRCops (in my opinion) complaining!
>That may be so, but you fail to realize that the Iphone clients in no way
>interact with other irc users, only Iphone users. Hey man, if you want to put
>up a server so that there can be 25000 or so clients sit there, where you can't
>talk to them unless you use Iphone then go ahead and be my guest. If I can't
>even message my own users on my server, then I'll be damned if I am gonna
>support them much less a company that was too lazy to include some other way
>Iphone users could talk to other Iphone users without leeching off a already
>overloaded irc network just to keep a database for some "new" technology not
>even meant to interact with "normal" irc users.
Awww poor baby. Your sweet IRC server has been so abused.... sheesh!
Sure, I understand your upset with Vocaltec. No problem. Have a discussion
with them -- even an angry one (which I'll bet it would be). But why punish
all the "people" (ie, humans just like you) who found something interesting in
which to participate and propogate. Is it because you're not IN CONTROL of it
all?
Ok, if you are the one "paying" for the IRC server, do as you choose. Don't
turn the world into assholes because you don't agree with them. This is like
shooting the messenger because you don't like the message.
But, who am I to talk. It's YOUR IRC, isn't it.
>>From my point of view, all it looks like to me is a snobbish elitist
political >>"old boys network" on the internet (ie, IRCops) wanting to keep
others out of >>their little playground.
>Believe what you will. If you really feel like you do, then do like I said
>above and bring up your own server and let the damn Iphone clients sit on it.
In case you haven't heard, Vocaltec is setting up their own IRC servers....
But that's not REALLY the point, is it?
>>I understand this attitude, and I can sympathize with it. BUT, there are
>>better ways to handle this situation than to "ban" Iphone users (who spent
>>money buying the s/ware or time downloading the demo like everyone else does
>>for other software). A dialogue (which I understand is now taking place) with
>>the IRC gods and the Iphone company (Vocaltec) is a more productive and FAIR
>>approach.
>Don't blame the IRC Operators for their decisions, blame the damn company that
>made Iphone which was to lazy to code their own lookup system. Relate your
>disgruntled feelings back to them and I guarantee they get enough complaint's
>they'll either: 1) Do something about it or 2) not do anything about it and
>lose business over it.
>>I've been watching the IRC newsgroups for a long time. I notice how snobby
>>all the answers are to newbies or confused users. I think that says what the
>>IRC gods are about.
>Well most of the snobby answers I have seen are already answered in the FAQ that
>is posted very often and is located on the ftpsite that carries IRC. If the
>damned newbies are too lazy to read the FAQ then they deserve snobby answers..
>-Chris
>--
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
>| Email: thu...@catt.ncsu.edu | Computer and Technologies Theme Program |
>| pcmo...@eos.ncsu.edu | North Carolina State University |
>| Christphr on IRC | |
>------------------------------------------------------------------------------
the searcher
->Well. You're missing the point. IRC Servers are put up by people
->volunteering their time and sites volunteering their machines and
->process. Trumpet for Windows (and other programs) are commercial yes,
->but they connect to a commercial provider. Iphone is a commercial
->product connecting to a *non commercial* server. That is the big
->difference. Granted the idea of Iphone is pretty neat, but using the IRC
->protocol to chat with someone is not what I would call on the cutting
->edge of technology.
once again, this looks like a dbl standard. so when i connect my commercial
news reader program, i am connecting to a commercial service also? and when
i connect my web browser, that is likewise a commercial service. and then
wsirc-registered is also connecting to some commercial irc network, right?
i wish these IRCops would identify which server they have IRCop status on....
i'll know which ones to avoid when i irc .
marianne
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
+ kidf...@tezcat.com | kidf...@mtp.com | m...@mtp.com +
+ "I'm just following my compass in the dark" <K. Hall> +
+ Indigo Girls: http://www.mtp.com/IG/HTML/ig-page.html +
+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+=+
Chris Athans
Blipper NY <ba-...@interport.net> wrote:
<SNIP>
>You say Iphone is making a profit. Probably so (even though the product is
>only 49 bucks and they have to pay the programmers, their phone service,
>taxes, employees, office expenses, product promotional material, computer
>expenses, and so on).
>
>Yet, when I think of all the usual internet software in use (Netscape,
>Trumpet, newsreaders, gophers, ftp clients, etc etc) which ALSO charge for
>their product (most, at any rate), whether via shareware or commercial
>upgrades, I don't hear anyone complaining about those profits.
>
>I think Iphone is one of the best "internet" products I've seen in a long
>time. And, it is on the cutting edge of net-technology. Yet, here are all
>these elitist IRCops (in my opinion) complaining!
>
>From my point of view, all it looks like to me is a snobbish elitist political
>"old boys network" on the internet (ie, IRCops) wanting to keep others out of
>their little playground.
>
>I understand this attitude, and I can sympathize with it. BUT, there are
>better ways to handle this situation than to "ban" Iphone users (who spent
>money buying the s/ware or time downloading the demo like everyone else does
>for other software). A dialogue (which I understand is now taking place) with
>the IRC gods and the Iphone company (Vocaltec) is a more productive and FAIR
>approach.
>
>I've been watching the IRC newsgroups for a long time. I notice how snobby
>all the answers are to newbies or confused users. I think that says what the
>IRC gods are about.
>
>
Well. You're missing the point. IRC Servers are put up by people
volunteering their time and sites volunteering their machines and
process. Trumpet for Windows (and other programs) are commercial yes,
but they connect to a commercial provider. Iphone is a commercial
product connecting to a *non commercial* server. That is the big
difference. Granted the idea of Iphone is pretty neat, but using the IRC
protocol to chat with someone is not what I would call on the cutting
edge of technology.
Christopher Davis
BN> Sure, I understand your upset with Vocaltec. No problem. Have a
BN> discussion with them -- even an angry one (which I'll bet it would
BN> be). But why punish all the "people" (ie, humans just like you) who
BN> found something interesting in which to participate and propogate.
Because there was no other way to get Vocaltec to act!
They blew off phone calls. ("They're in a meeting. All of them.")
They blew off e-mail.
They sent a badly-formatted message to the IRC operators mailing list
saying (in effect) "Yeah, we'll have a server up in a month or so, just
let us keep leeching off you until then."
The only remaining way to get their attention was to have their customers
(both paying and potential) notice what was going on.
BN> In case you haven't heard, Vocaltec is setting up their own IRC
BN> servers....
BN> But that's not REALLY the point, is it?
Yes, it is, and this is exactly what we've been asking for. Now Vocaltec
and other IPhone users (irc.pulver.com) are going to supply the resources
to allow IPhone users to find each other, and everything's fine.
See? It didn't take that long for them to set up a server. It wasn't
that hard. They could have done it a month ago, if they'd wanted to.
--
Christopher Davis * <c...@kei.com> * <URL:http://www.kei.com/homepages/ckd/>
512/03829F89 = D7 C9 A7 80 8C 84 3F B2 27 E1 48 61 BF FC 18 B4
1024/66CB73DD = 46 8E FD F5 12 8E 13 4C 2C 8A 92 A3 B0 D5 2A 5E
[ Public keys available by finger, WWW, or keyserver ]
Jeremy Nelson
>slw...@netcom.com (Steve Work) wrote:
>
>->Not so with Iphone. When you send email, you use a small number of
>->bytes. Same with regular irc. Using Iphone uses roughly 100 times the
>->bandwith to convey the same information. And the user of Iphone does not
>->bear this cost, he passes it on to other users.
>
>can you back this claim up with some hard numbers?
>if not, retract this OPINION which you are trying assert is FACT.
Hmmm. lets see... This sentence took me four seconds to say at normal
speed. According to vocaltech's own data, thats roughly (7 * 1024 * 4) bytes.
According to my count, that setence was 59 bytes long (including the period)
So lets see... 7 * 1024 * 4 == 28,672 bytes (in 5 seconds)
Text it took... 59 bytes (in 10 seconds)
Ratio: 486 times as many bytes -- without
even comparing the time difference.
Now, if you doubt that, lets look at it another way.
7k/sec is 420k/min -- 430,080 characters per minute. That works out to
oh... 71,680 words per minute. Do you type that fast?
Now.. that wasnt so hard, was it? Its very clear that 7k/sec is more then
100 times the bandwidth that anyone can possibly type. I think you should
thank him for "only" claiming that it uses 100 times the bandwidth when it
appears through running the numbers that the usage is many times even that.
-hop
--
nel...@cs.uwp.edu
Four
Lines
Suffice.
Blipper NY
>From: cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Chris Athans)
>Subject: Re: Why do servers ban Iphone?
><SNIP>
>Well. You're missing the point. IRC Servers are put up by people
>volunteering their time and sites volunteering their machines and
>process. Trumpet for Windows (and other programs) are commercial yes,
>but they connect to a commercial provider. Iphone is a commercial
>product connecting to a *non commercial* server. That is the big
>difference. Granted the idea of Iphone is pretty neat, but using the IRC
>protocol to chat with someone is not what I would call on the cutting
>edge of technology.
>-Chris
>--
>Chris Athans cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
>-= If You're not living life on the edge of the net,
> you're taking up too much bandwidth =-
>-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-
No, I think you miss the point. Iphone is a product that a USER uses. Iphone
doesn't connect to anything. I, as a user, connect to something. I am using
a tool to COMMUNICATE. Nothing more, nothing less.
I also hear that many of the IRC sites are not "owned" or "paid for" by their
ops but by their universities and other contributors.
Whether that's true or not, this is not about the users using the net to
communicate. This argument is more about some upset ops being mad at a "bad
neighbor" as some call vocaltec, and the ops are punishing the PEOPLE.
Seems snobbish and political to me.
Blipper NY
>From: slw...@netcom.com (Steve Work)
>Subject: Re: Why do servers ban Iphone?
>C. A. Piepenbring (ji...@rahul.net) wrote:
>: Blipper NY <ba-...@interport.net> wrote:
>: >You say Iphone is making a profit. Probably so (even though the product is
>: >only 49 bucks and they have to pay the programmers, their phone service,
>: >taxes, employees, office expenses, product promotional material, computer
>: >expenses, and so on).
>: >
>: Don't forget that Vocaltec also uses IPhone to plug the hell out of their
>: hardware (Vocaltec Compression Card)... I'd say that between the two, they
>: probably make a pretty tidy profit.
>You're a really sucker if you fall for that "Vocaltec compression card".
>So it lowers the data rate from 7kbps to 6kbps. Big deal! Why does
>anyone stealing bandwidth from the net care about paying voicetec big
>bucks for some card so they steal a tiny bit less bandwidth. A card
>which probably degrades both the voice quality and the reliability of
>your computer.
First, this message has MISquoted me (goes along with the misinformation being
spread about Iphone). I did NOT write the second paragraph above... and I
don't see mention of another author. Another self-serving approach via the
use of editing, I'd say.
Your bandwidth argument is so totally wrong and unfounded that I won't go on
debating with you. You simply DON'T KNOW what you're talking about.
D. Nguyen
I'd like to obtain information to setup an IRC clients. Would someone
show me what ftp sites to get irc software for Windows 3.1 and
instruction how to set it up.
Thanks,
-Duy
p.s. Please send mail to d...@saigon.com
Mark Hunnibell
> Not so with Iphone. When you send email, you use a small number of
> bytes. Same with regular irc. Using Iphone uses roughly 100 times the
> bandwith to convey the same information. And the user of Iphone does not
> bear this cost, he passes it on to other users.
To follow up on a theme in an earlier post I made...
Who died and made you, a Netcruiser of all people, the divine
interpreter of what is right and what is wrong for Internet?
Give it a rest, Steve. With my WWW browser, I can get images,
sounds, and other really huge things all day long and yet you
don't hear anyone saying "oooh please don't use WWW because it
is bad and scary and I'm too lame to know how it works, so I'll
come out against using it." When you get a T1 link, you are paying
to stuff 1MB/sec of WHATEVER YOU WANT over that line. When you
hook up with a service provider like Netcom or Concentric Research,
your user fees pay for your share of their T1, or T3, or whatever
links they have. If they have a poorly designed rate schedule
and are losing money because people are actually USING the
bandwidth allotted to them, that is not my problem and its not
your problem. It's the problem of the service provider.
Netcom probably LOVES the number of Netcruisers using IRC because
it means they're probably not using substantially greater bandwidth
hogs like FTP or WWW. Such users are not getting all of what
they pay for. It is wholly inappropriate for you to go on
some idiotic crusade to say that those people who *do* want to use
their bandwidth are somehow causing you an inconvenience.
Mark Hunnibell
hunn...@cris.com
Shawn
original message -- it was written in the heat of anger, after trying
for an hour to find an IRC server that would let me on with IPhone.
Chris Athans (cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
: You're missing the issue here.. IRC was setup so people could chat live,
: via text. WSIRC and WINIRC allow that, IPHONE Doesn't!
Says who? I'm not "chatting live" with IPhone? I agree that it's
not text, but it IS *CHAT*.. And IRC does stand for "Internet Relay
CHAT", does it not?
: Iphone *uses* are established network (which is bearly stable, if
: we're lucky sometimes) and drops a big enough load on it to make it
: worse. US = The Servers.
Please explain to me how IPhone "dumps a load" on the IRC Servers.
It was my understanding that the only 'load' IPhone puts on a server
is a PTY connection, and the ONLY data that is actually transferred
is the the "so and so has joined/left this room" message. IPhone sees
this, and updates it's "directory of people in the room"
message. All *other* action (the actual chat) takes place through DCC
connections, which puts <ZERO> load on an IRC server. In fact, one
the DCC connection is established, the user(s) can hit IRC DISCONNECT
and keep right on talking!
: We don't want money from VocalTech we want some sort of support on their
: end. America On-line will be joining the net shortly and there was a
: discussion just as big as this about what is going to happen when they
: drop 3,000+ users online. America Online will be putting up multiple
: servers to help ease the load. AOL approached the situation like it
: should have been. They talked to the IRCOPs, expressed their interest in
: joining the IRC network (EFNet) and wanted to know what they needed to
: join so it would work both for their customers and the rest of the net.
Ya know, it *really* sounds to me like IRCOPS feel they *own* the
EFNET.... when nothing but the opposite is true. They didn't HAVE to
go to you at ALL; they could have went to "root@site" and gotten
permission directly from the people RESPONSIBLE for the system. I
know I have sent several letters myself to root of one of the
systems where I am a customer (and the site has installed the
anti-IPhone patch); I'm going to love to see what they say -- I have
a feeling they don't even 'know' that their "Volunteer" IRCOP has
arbitrarily disabled their customers ability to use the IRC server.
: VocalTech did nothing of the sort! They just dropped their clients on
: the server which don't utilize what the server is for and bog down the
: server unnecessarly. Then, when we tried to talk to them, they have us
: some BS answer and that really pissed a lot of people off. It's one thing
: to deal with a product that gives you trouble, but a companies that gives
: BS answers... That's a different story... The whole implamentation of the
: IPhone client should have been discussed with the IRCOpers before the
: released it.. And if VocalTech doesn't like that idea, then tuff....It's
: our servers, we put them there for a specific reason (Text chat) and if
: they're not willing to comply or atleast meet us half way then I don't
: want their clients on my server..
I knew it. "It's MY server, it's OUR IRC".. Sorry, it's NOT. Do you
OWN the equipment? (In some cases you may, but not in most.) Do YOU
pay the bills for the use of that equipment? No? Shouldn't it be the
decision of the person who IS ultimately responsible?
If that's the case, then I offer this:
1) Need someone to put together a "list" of all sites that have
banned Iphone.
2) Need someone to come up with a PATCH for telnet & FTP daemons that
will allow sites to display a message "sorry, <such and such site> is
not welcome here" when someone (anyone) from that sites attempts to
ftp/telnet to the site running this patch.
3) Need someone familiar with HTTPD & CGI to create a script that
does the same thing as above -- anyone coming in from a 'locked out'
site will display a message stating "you are not welcome here" when
they attempt to access the home page of someone who has installed the
CGI patch.
Gee, what's wrong with this scenario? Sure, it probably WON'T
happen.. (Well, except for #3.. I AM interested in that one. <g>) but
that's because sites have a VESTED INTEREST in providing SERVICE to
customers... but yet, that's exactly what the IRCOPS have done! For
instance, if my site does NOT reinstitute IPhone access *at least for
their own customers*, I'll cancel the account in a heartbeat.
Period. AND take my money to someone who wants it.
I'm really getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a
"pissing contest" between VocalTec and IRCOPs, and as soon as it
starts cutting into customer accounts, some sites will be looking for
"new" IRCOPs. Remember, your are VOLUNTEERS.. Banning a "group" of
people just because YOU don't like them looks very bad for your
company/college. What's next? Shall we ban <insert
race/color/religion/sexual orientation here>? How about banning
WAREZ people that (supposedly) use JUST as much bandwidth
transmitting illegal software? What, you can't? Won't? Why not?
BTW -- Ease my troubled mind and tell me that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc
did NOT contact the IRCOPS and ASK (or PAY) for them to do this. :)
(Hey, gotta get the 'conspiracy' theory in here *somewhere*) <g>
Shawn
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| Shawn McCullar | Make both love and war; |
| A.K.A. sout...@best.com | Get married. |
| $30/mo for Shell & SLIP/PPP at 28.8 with 35M of space in 408/415 |
| e-mail: in...@best.com URL: http://www.best.com/local.htm |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
firebug
: Ah, so "real text" is the point? As opposed to "real communication in another
: form"?
It takes much less resources to transmit text than voice.
: As someone said in an iphone mailist message: image if the phone company
: banned FAXES over phone lines because the 'original' setup of phone lines was
: NOT for faxes. Get my point?
a) it is the reverse situation, you can transmit more data with a fax than
you can with voice
b) you pay for your phone line
c) no matter how much you use your phone line, it does not affect the speed
of other people's phone lines.
: Bandwidth issues? Er... you better tell all the media and other sources of
: marketing/promotion to stop discussing the Internet and the "info highway."
The media doesnt want to stop. There is no information superhighway. The
internet certainly isn't it. What the media reports means nothing about how
things really are. Any semi-intelligent person can realize that after a
short time.
: How about Delphi, AOL, CIS, et al charging their users a LOT of money to have
: an on-ramp to the Internet? Bandwidth? For whom .... by whom.
If you have a point, please make it, because as of now you're not making
sense.
: I'm sorry. I have seen the IRC attitude for awhile now. It's a members only
: approach. It's elitist at best.
What part did you have in paying for the equipment the IRC servers are
running on? You and I and most of the world are GUESTS. If they don't want
us there, that's their right and our problem.
: I think IRC is a good thing as a function on the internet. I appreciate the
: hard work and committment that IRCops must put in... but why is it when
: something new comes along (like IRC was at one time), many of the "head
: honchos" (male and female :-) resist the change.
Change in IRC is something like the addition of the undernet patches. The
best way I heard the use of iphone described is that the users dont even
communicate with IRC, it's just a storage space for deciding who to waste
bandwidth with.
: This should be welcomed (Iphone, that is) and "handled" as opposed to words
: like "banned" or "Iphone users not welcome" etc.
As soon as you're paying for the IRC server and the bandwidth you're using
with iphone, I'm sure noone will object.
: The users and buyers of the s/ware are the ones being punished here.
Yes. But that's too bad. They're allowed to punish you.
: And all the time that I was enjoying communicating with my fellow netters via
: voice, I could've sworn I was experiencing something GOOD about the 'net' and
: about IRC.
You certainly weren't.
: I'm not sure I get the connection. In other words, if 100,000 people download
: an IRC client and use it, that's ok... but 25000 iphone downloaders have a
: problem?
Yes. Because there are 100,000 more people communicating on IRC. Those
25,000 iphone downloaders are wasting a connection and a process.
: Who are you mad at here? Vocaltec -- for creating an exciting application?
: Iphone users for using it? People on the net who are interested in expanding
: the internet's horizons and uses? Or just anyone who won't play in your
: playground the way YOU want and dictate?
Until the internet is able to handle voice communication, it shouldn't be
used for that.
: And, I'd say you ought to give this all some thought. Stop over-reacting.
: Think of the possibilities and expansion of the net. Think of all the
: pople who are now "talking" to one another in a positive manner. Think of all
: the interconnectivity. Think of the pioneering feeling some people get.
: Think of something other than your precious bandwidth and IRC playground.
Are these people talking to each other contributing ANYTHING?
firebug
: >Even if they weren't making a profit, it is commercial, and a lot of people
: >dont like that.
: But so are MAIL clients, BROWSERS, and many other programs. We still need
: TOOLS to navigate and explore.
There are very many free ones. You say 'we still need tools' like there is
some shortage.
: Hmm, another example of snobbery. You call Iphone uses "frivolous" and a
: waste of bandwidth. Too bad 10's of thousands of people don't agree. I
: guess they should only agree with you, huh?
Yes. I don't care how many people disagree with me, they are still wrong.
: >We have telephones for voice communications.
: Ah, I see. No one should invent/create anything other than in the pigeonholed
: mentality? I guess we ought to stop scientists too!
You're just talking typical "our stupid broken windows software is a
breakthrough" trash.
: Abusing IRC? Oh, how so? Because YOU don't like Iphone (or similar
: products)? Because YOU don't enjoy communicating with your voice?
Because they are not communicating with IRC. If I want to communicate with
my voice, I'll use a phone or talk to someone face to face.
: Snob.
Fool. Ignoramus.
Person-who-talks-before-taking-some-time-to-learn-what-he-is-talking-about.
: >Remember that the server belongs to the IRCops. They can kline you for not
: >liking your name, and you have to deal with it.
: Yeah, that's my whole point! It's not about fair, it's not about evolution,
: it's not about much else than snobbish elitism and power.
And you have NO RIGHT TO BITCH ABOUT IT!
: >Wanting to keep others from trashing their playground certainly.
: Just how is someone "typing" on the IRC less "trashing" than someone "talking"
: on the IRC??? Geesh! What kind of people run these IRCs!!!!!????
Because to send "get a clue stupid iphone user" takes 30 bytes, plus some
protocol overhead. To send that in voice, assuming it takes 3 seconds and
it's a 28.8k modem connection (I would guess iphone uses the available
bandwidth to get some semi-decent quality) takes 10k. That is 360 times
more.
Besides the fact that they are not even communicating with the rest of IRC.
: >Nobody cares how much money you spent on IPhone or a computer, use a
: >telephone if you want to talk voice, use IRC and type if you want to
: >communicate over a computer.
: Hmm, OH! I see now. I better get rid of my ham radio since it uses VOICE
: over the airwaves, which, if I understand your attitude, should only be used
: for breathing -- as long as we have YOUR approval too!
That is not a valid analogy. Although processes on IRC servers and bandwidth
are limited, and when you use some it is not available for anyone else, I
can still breathe air that has radio signals in it.
: Give me a break. Your arguments are political, power-hungry, old-fashioned,
: and I hope your mentality does not pervade on the net as a whole. We'd still
: be in covered wagons with mentors like you.
Sorry, but a lot of people share my mentality. You just don't have a clue.
There seriously needs to be a "newbie's guide to the net" explaining things,
because it seems that noone wants to take the time anymore to learn at a
normal rate.
N. Decker
: slw...@netcom.com (Steve Work) wrote:
: ->Not so with Iphone. When you send email, you use a small number of
: ->bytes. Same with regular irc. Using Iphone uses roughly 100 times the
: ->bandwith to convey the same information. And the user of Iphone does not
: ->bear this cost, he passes it on to other users.
: can you back this claim up with some hard numbers?
: if not, retract this OPINION which you are trying assert is FACT.
Somehow, after knowing how little bandwidth is included in mailing simple
ascii text, as compared to what even a simple, 8-bit soundfile can
contain, I find it hard to believe Iphone is small in transfer k.
I'd love to see some numbers on this though...anyone?
--
N. Decker Mississippi State University
na...@Ra.MsState.Edu Bite @ Irc
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Nelson
>Says who? I'm not "chatting live" with IPhone? I agree that it's
>not text, but it IS *CHAT*.. And IRC does stand for "Internet Relay
>CHAT", does it not?
Your convoluted logic in an attempt to convince yourself that you somehow
need to justify the blatant misuse of resource is not impressing anyone.
You might as well not waste your breath, for the only people you are
"convincing" are the people who have a vested interest in your opinion.
IRC is not a medium for voice transmissions, whether that role may
be active or passive. That is just the way it is, and no matter how you
may talk talk talk, nothing can change it.
>Please explain to me how IPhone "dumps a load" on the IRC Servers.
>It was my understanding that the only 'load' IPhone puts on a server
>is a PTY connection, and the ONLY data that is actually transferred
>is the the "so and so has joined/left this room" message. IPhone sees
>this, and updates it's "directory of people in the room"
>message. All *other* action (the actual chat) takes place through DCC
>connections, which puts <ZERO> load on an IRC server. In fact, one
>the DCC connection is established, the user(s) can hit IRC DISCONNECT
>and keep right on talking!
USER message (about 40 bytes)
NICK message (about 15 bytes)
AWAY message (about 100 bytes, + 40 byte return ack)
JOIN message (about 15 bytes + 250 bytes in return ack)
WHO message (about 15 bytes + 1,000 bytes in return ack)
LIST message (about 5 bytes + 30,000 bytes in return ack)
CTCP message(s) (about 40 bytes)
Mind you it attempts to do this 34K of network traffic in a few seconds,
which puts a very heavy strain on the server to keep up with the client's
demands. Never mind the fact that iphone does a /LIST periodically which
slurps up 30k of bandwidth each request. The statement that iphone may
or may not generate a lot of traffic TO client server may or may not be
valid, but it cannot be mistaken that iphone DEMANDS a lot of traffic
FROM the server.
>Ya know, it *really* sounds to me like IRCOPS feel they *own* the
>EFNET.... when nothing but the opposite is true.
Wow. Youre clueing in. This is essentially correct.
>They didn't HAVE to go to you at ALL; they could have went to
>"root@site" and gotten permission directly from the people RESPONSIBLE
>for the system.
Oops. i spoke too soon. Do you think that 'root@site' will force the admin
of an irc server to allow you to use the irc server on that machine becuase
he's such a nice guy and wants to allow you to load up his machine with
all sorts of completely useless traffic? Boy. You sure are naiive. Id
love to sell you some swampland -- im sure youd buy it.
>I know I have sent several letters myself to root of one of the
>systems where I am a customer (and the site has installed the
>anti-IPhone patch); I'm going to love to see what they say -- I have
>a feeling they don't even 'know' that their "Volunteer" IRCOP has
>arbitrarily disabled their customers ability to use the IRC server.
Theyre going to say "IRC is a game. So they wont let you on the game.
If you want to call someone real time, use the telephone" If you think
that the root of some commercial provider is just drooling at the prospect
of allowing you to use up their bandwidth so that you can carry on a telephone
conversation for free, you are really really really naiive.
>I knew it. "It's MY server, it's OUR IRC".. Sorry, it's NOT. Do you
>OWN the equipment? (In some cases you may, but not in most.) Do YOU
>pay the bills for the use of that equipment? No? Shouldn't it be the
>decision of the person who IS ultimately responsible?
The irc administrator is placed in ultimate authority by proxy of whomever
may be directly responsible for the machine. Roots often do not have the
desire or the inclination to take any time for irc. Your insinuation that
some of them may counteract the wishes of the people who they have truested
enough to run an irc server so that your every wish can be "serviced" --
you really really really are naiive (boy.. i hope youre getting the point
by now)
>1) Need someone to put together a "list" of all sites that have
>banned Iphone.
Even if they havent banned lphone, the other servers can have you removed
on sight, even if you dont use their server in the first place.
>2) Need someone to come up with a PATCH for telnet & FTP daemons that
>will allow sites to display a message "sorry, <such and such site> is
>not welcome here" when someone (anyone) from that sites attempts to
>ftp/telnet to the site running this patch.
Actually, i think that should be applied to people who insist on running
iphone on the EFnet -- your flagrant misuse of other's bandwidth should
be cause for punishing your entire domain.
>3) Need someone familiar with HTTPD & CGI to create a script that
>does the same thing as above -- anyone coming in from a 'locked out'
>site will display a message stating "you are not welcome here" when
>they attempt to access the home page of someone who has installed the
>CGI patch.
Boy. Youre quite the net.cop arent you! Boy. I sure am sorry i ever
crossed your path.. *tremble* Oh please, oh great and mighty net.cop,
please do not "lock me out" becuase i have offended your great eliteness!
Please! Let me service you! Please! Let me donate my already overworked
bandwidth so that you can save a few bucks on your phone bill! Please!
Please! Anything but this! *shaking in fear*
>Gee, what's wrong with this scenario? Sure, it probably WON'T
>happen.. (Well, except for #3.. I AM interested in that one. <g>) but
>that's because sites have a VESTED INTEREST in providing SERVICE to
>customers... but yet, that's exactly what the IRCOPS have done! For
>instance, if my site does NOT reinstitute IPhone access *at least for
>their own customers*, I'll cancel the account in a heartbeat.
>Period. AND take my money to someone who wants it.
The problem with your idea is that you are punishing all the users from
a domain simply becuase the irc server there wont let you connect willy
nilly to cheat on your phone bill. And you call yourself a proponent of
fair and equitable network usage. Youre a disgrace to your cause.
>Remember, your are VOLUNTEERS..
REMEMBER! YOU ARE A _*_*_*GUEST*_*_*_! DO NOT FORGET IT!
>BTW -- Ease my troubled mind and tell me that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc
>did NOT contact the IRCOPS and ASK (or PAY) for them to do this. :)
>
>(Hey, gotta get the 'conspiracy' theory in here *somewhere*) <g>
You are truly pathetic. Go get a life and maybe a clue, too.
Damon Chetson
> Chris Athans (cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM) wrote:
> : You're missing the issue here.. IRC was setup so people could chat live,
> : via text. WSIRC and WINIRC allow that, IPHONE Doesn't!
>
> Says who? I'm not "chatting live" with IPhone? I agree that it's
> not text, but it IS *CHAT*.. And IRC does stand for "Internet Relay
> CHAT", does it not?
>
Read his whole sentence again: "IRC was setup so people could
chat live, via text." IPhone does not "chat live, via text."
So you are wrong and Athans is right.
And simply because it's named IRC doesn't mean it has anything
to do with voice communication.
James Sneeringer
: you know this for a fact? have you even looked at the client?
: you can in fact receive text messages from irc text clients while using
: iphone. at this point, however, there are no provisions to respond in
: ascii.
Yeah, now *that's* what I call communication. One-way transmissions. That's
3leet. No, 4leet.
James Sneeringer CrowMan @ irc
jsne...@slonet.org http://slonet.org/~jsneerin/USA.html
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
[your ad here]
Chris Athans
>It was my understanding that the only 'load' IPhone puts on a server
>is a PTY connection, and the ONLY data that is actually transferred
>is the the "so and so has joined/left this room" message. IPhone sees
>this, and updates it's "directory of people in the room"
>message. All *other* action (the actual chat) takes place through DCC
>connections, which puts <ZERO> load on an IRC server. In fact, one
>the DCC connection is established, the user(s) can hit IRC DISCONNECT
>and keep right on talking!
>
See Hendrix's previous posts, he explains clearly how IPhone puts a load
on the net and IRC...
>Ya know, it *really* sounds to me like IRCOPS feel they *own* the
>EFNET.... when nothing but the opposite is true. They didn't HAVE to
>go to you at ALL; they could have went to "root@site" and gotten
>permission directly from the people RESPONSIBLE for the system. I
>know I have sent several letters myself to root of one of the
>systems where I am a customer (and the site has installed the
>anti-IPhone patch); I'm going to love to see what they say -- I have
>a feeling they don't even 'know' that their "Volunteer" IRCOP has
>arbitrarily disabled their customers ability to use the IRC server.
>
In my case, and I'm sure in a lot of other cases root@site doesn't give a
rat's ass if they have an IRC server on their site or not... If the
IrcOps were to walk away from their servers, I can assure you *at least*
90% of root@site would not pick up the responsibility, infact they would
shut it down. Any IrcOps disagree ??? Basically the IrcOps ask
permission if they can borrow some disk space and some processes to put
the server up. I'd like to see a root force an IrcAdmin to remove a
patch *especially* when the patch cuts down on processes the server takes up.
>I knew it. "It's MY server, it's OUR IRC".. Sorry, it's NOT. Do you
>OWN the equipment? (In some cases you may, but not in most.) Do YOU
>pay the bills for the use of that equipment? No? Shouldn't it be the
>decision of the person who IS ultimately responsible?
>
<Above reply covers this area>
>If that's the case, then I offer this:
>
<Lame list deleted>
>Gee, what's wrong with this scenario? Sure, it probably WON'T
>happen.. (Well, except for #3.. I AM interested in that one. <g>) but
>that's because sites have a VESTED INTEREST in providing SERVICE to
>customers... but yet, that's exactly what the IRCOPS have done! For
>instance, if my site does NOT reinstitute IPhone access *at least for
>their own customers*, I'll cancel the account in a heartbeat.
>Period. AND take my money to someone who wants it.
>
What if your site didn't have an IRC Server? Would you send hate mail
to the server you connect to demanding them to delete the Iphone patch ?
When you signed up through your ISP, did he advertise having an IRC
Server (not just Irc access) at your site? If not, then you won't get
far. Like I said, most root's don't run the IRC Server. So, go ahead
and cancel your account where you're at, then you can join netcum, the
have an IRC Server and they don't run the Iphone patch! Then again, they
don't maintain it either...
>I'm really getting the feeling that this is nothing more than a
>"pissing contest" between VocalTec and IRCOPs, and as soon as it
Obviously you haven't been following the lenghtly discussion in the
OPERlist so I suggest you get your facts straight. You're entering a
conversation with only part of the story...
>starts cutting into customer accounts, some sites will be looking for
>"new" IRCOPs. Remember, your are VOLUNTEERS.. Banning a "group" of
>people just because YOU don't like them looks very bad for your
I know "groups" of people who run floodbots/clonebots and I know "groups"
of site that do that same. I KLINE them because of the strain on the net
and the server.. Is that wrong ? IPhone puts a strain on my server... So
I keep them off..
>BTW -- Ease my troubled mind and tell me that AT&T, MCI, Sprint, etc
>did NOT contact the IRCOPS and ASK (or PAY) for them to do this. :)
>
<grin> If they paid us money, would there be a question of whether or not
to ban Iphone ? j/k
Shawn
<A flame. and nothing but a flame>.
Ok, Mr. High-and-mighty IRC GOD. I really don't *care* if you ban
IPhone. Really, I don't. I'm going to use the program anyway, and
there's not *1 thing* you can do about it.
You don't want me to use it on your site? fine.. no problem. I'll
find others. They're out there, ya know. And it's gonna take up the
same amount of bandwidth on the backbones. Did you know that there
are MORE programs <gasp> like this one coming out? Some with <bigger
gasp> BIDIRECTIONAL chat? Simultaneously? So now you not only have
to worry about a palty 1K/sec in one direction, you have to worry
about it BOTH directions <faint>.
I could really care less if you want to play God on "your" server
(Which is owned by an EDU site, no less, meaning that public funds
are being paid for you to play "God"). Nope, don't care one little
bit.
The only reason I mentioned those "3 things I'd like to see"
(patching Telnetd & ftpd to deny access to sites like yours) is to
show you how TOTALLY unfair such an "Action" by IRCOPs is.. You
*can't* stop programs like IPhone. Your not even going to slow it
DOWN. If your only worried about "how much bandwidth" the program is
going to take (Gee, "Death of the Internet!"), forget it.
So go ahead, play God on your pathetic little corner of the Internet,
and be content. I'll be content running programs like IPhone,
WWW & FTP.
BTW, if your "root" doesn't have time to "maintain" an IRC server, I
have to wonder how they're going to have time to address hundreds of
rebellious users (Read: CUSTOMERS) who want to use their own sites to
run a LEGAL program.
Shawn
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| Shawn McCullar | ERROR #32. KEYBOARD NOT |
| A.K.A. sout...@best.com | RESPONDING! Use Hammer? y/n |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| Shawn McCullar | Fer sell cheep: IBM spel |
| A.K.A. sout...@best.com | chekker. Wurks grate. |
FreeSoft@irc
FTP from cs-ftp.bu.edu /irc/clients
and get the graphical interface WSIRC, or
the character-based ircii2-6
You will need WINSOCk.DLL 1.1 and a TCP/IP-dialer (like netmanage
sampler or chameleon, or trumpet)with a SLIP or
PPP connection from your internet service provider. Be sure to
set your host and domain names correctly.
Some online IRC help is usually available by: /msg ai- help
FreeSoft
:-)
Chris Athans
>sout...@best.com writes:
>>
>> Says who? I'm not "chatting live" with IPhone? I agree that it's
>> not text, but it IS *CHAT*.. And IRC does stand for "Internet Relay
>> CHAT", does it not?
>>
>
>Read his whole sentence again: "IRC was setup so people could
>chat live, via text." IPhone does not "chat live, via text."
>So you are wrong and Athans is right.
>
>And simply because it's named IRC doesn't mean it has anything
>to do with voice communication.
>
Thank you.. IRC has been established and accepted over the years as
Internet Relay Chat (IRC) and it is assumed and become the standard that
text was the protocol of communication. If Iphone likes the IRC Protocol
so much, why not have them form their own network ? IRVC ? Internet Relay
Voice Chat ?!?!
Bill Watts
>Blipper NY <ba-...@interport.net> wrote:
>finland via modem to dl GNU programs, then i wont mind you using the
>internet to call Le Femme Fatale in Paris when you have the 12 button
>wonder on your coffee table next to you.
>
Interesting choice of analogies. But if you understood how the modern
phone system works, you'd know that Iphone is more efficient
bandwidthwise. The analog modem signal over the phone line is digitalized
by the phone company so that it can be sent out over a multiplexed
trancontinental fiber link, and it is a constant stream of bits. While
the Iphone digitalized voice bits are also packet switched out over a
multiplexed transcontinental fiber link, far less bits are involved, since
the speech is intermitant. So Iphone is a far more resource efficient,
and is also more efficient than a regular voice call (which also is
digitalized by the phone company), because there would be less bits
involved (lower sound quality).
The reason the phone call to Finland costs so much is because the Finland
government and the Finland phone company (probably the same entity, I
don't know the state of privatization in Europe) are socking huge per
minute fees (known as settlement charges) that AT&T (or whoever you use)
have no choice but to pay, on top of the per minute fee (known as access
charges) AT&T must pay your local phone company monopoly for all long
distance calls.
The bottom line is that you don't know what you're talking about when it
comes to cost and bandwidth efficiency.
--
Bill Watts
po...@access.digex.net
Wiccan
slw...@netcom.com (Steve Work) wrote:
>Blipper NY (ba-...@interport.net) wrote:
>
>: As someone said in an iphone mailist message: image if the phone
company
>: banned FAXES over phone lines because the 'original' setup of phone
lines was
>: NOT for faxes. Get my point?
>
>local call, a fax can actually save money because the same amount of
>information can be transmitted in less time, which frees up the phone line
>quicker for someone else to use. If it is long-distance, the sender pays
>the prevailing toll for the call.
>Not so with Iphone. When you send email, you use a small number of
Regarding the people who say "You've got a fone, why not use that to call
someone..."
Hey.. why not ban the #sex, #wetsex, #gaysex, #whateversex channels
-- the people have fones.. why can't they just go and call some 1-900
number or something.. what a complete and utter waste of bandwidth just so
someone will have a reason to go buy one of those plastic keyboard covers.
I guess EFnet thinks being able to type one handed is a good thing, eh?
__ __ .__
/ \ / \|__| ____ ____ _____ ____ DoD# 1582
\ \/\/ /| |_/ ___\ _/ ___\ \__ \ / \
\ / | |\ \___ \ \___ / __ \_| | \
\__/\ / |__| \___ > \___ >(____ /|___| /
\/ \/ \/ \/ \/
Todd
kidf...@tezcat.com (the searcher) wrote:
#>cat...@Starbase.NeoSoft.COM (Chris Athans) wrote:
#>
#>->Well. You're missing the point. IRC Servers are put up by people
#>->volunteering their time and sites volunteering their machines and
#>->process. Trumpet for Windows (and other programs) are commercial yes,
#>->but they connect to a commercial provider. Iphone is a commercial
#>->product connecting to a *non commercial* server. That is the big
#>->difference. Granted the idea of Iphone is pretty neat, but using the
IRC
#>->protocol to chat with someone is not what I would call on the cutting
#>->edge of technology.
#>
#>once again, this looks like a dbl standard. so when i connect my
commercial
#>news reader program, i am connecting to a commercial service also? and
when
#>i connect my web browser, that is likewise a commercial service. and then
#>wsirc-registered is also connecting to some commercial irc network, right?
#>
#>i wish these IRCops would identify which server they have IRCop status
on....
#>i'll know which ones to avoid when i irc .
#>
#>marianne
Its basically a problem with the new technology trying to compete with new
technology. Most Ops and Cops and especially people running BOTs that like
to play god on IRC cant stand IPhone because it takes them OUT of the game.
And because it is new and exciting it has the OLD TIMERS nervous and cranky
because they arent sure what they are going to do about.
Saying that IPhone is (or going to be) banned from IRC (internet relay CHAT
isnt it?) because it is a commercial product is crap. Eighty percent of
everyone on IRC is on commercially in some form or another. Cris.com is
commercial, so is WSIRC-r that I use, so that point is null and void.
On the other hand Volatec should have at least talked with the server
owners/operators to find out if there software was going to cause problems.
By the way has anyone NOT been able to log onto IRC because of IPhone? Has
anyone seen any greater Lag times because of it??? Doubt it!
Remember what IRC stands for--- internet relay "CHAT". Does CHAT mean we
have to type into the next century?
------------------------------------------------
email T...@cris.com
Finger t...@cris.com for pgp public key.
WWW Home Page-http://www.cris.com/~tjv
Visit the Snowmobiling Home Page - Snow-A-Rama at:
http://www.interlog.com/~daver/snowarama/
GO AMERKS!
------------------------------------------------
Jeremy Nelson
>Jeremy Nelson (nel...@cs.uwp.edu) wrote:
><A flame. and nothing but a flame>.
>
>Ok, Mr. High-and-mighty IRC GOD. I really don't *care* if you ban
>IPhone. Really, I don't. I'm going to use the program anyway, and
>there's not *1 thing* you can do about it.
Free clue. I have no power. I neither run a server, nor am i an "IrcOper"
as is so eliquantly put. I am just a common squalid luser who thinks that
all you iphonerds are talking out your butts and have no clue how irc
works and then you go and flame those people who do. Before yesterday
i had not even heard of iphone. But after reading several dozen completely
stupid, pointless, unintelligible drivelings, it was very easy to make
up my mind who i was going to believe.
>I could really care less if you want to play God on "your" server
>(Which is owned by an EDU site, no less, meaning that public funds
>are being paid for you to play "God"). Nope, don't care one little
>bit.
Boy. you really are clueless. Did you automatically assume that since
i am opposed to iphone and the iphonerds that i run a server? You
really need to get a breath of fresh air. You seem to have lost
your perspective. I just think you iphonerds are a bunch of clueless
sheep who bleat any time anyone questions your outrageous sweeping
claims of how "revolutionary" and "harmless" this product is.
>So go ahead, play God on your pathetic little corner of the Internet,
>and be content. I'll be content running programs like IPhone,
>WWW & FTP.
I neither own, nor run a machine. Where did you draw all these
conclusions from? If you have no idea about me, yet you feel free
to make all sorts of wild assumptions, which have no basis in
reality, then how can you ever possibly hope to convince anyone
else that you have any idea about anything else you say?
>BTW, if your "root" doesn't have time to "maintain" an IRC server, I
>have to wonder how they're going to have time to address hundreds of
>rebellious users (Read: CUSTOMERS) who want to use their own sites to
>run a LEGAL program.
My root doesnt run a server. I am a user. I said that several times
in previous posts. You either have not been paying attention, you
are just not listening, or youre just plain stupid, or maybe all three.
Learn how to use a newsreader. Your sig gets posted twice.
Damon Chetson
>
> Huh? If the toaster paid the access charge, then the toaster has every
> much a right to use the cellular phone channel as I do. Sounds like the
> phone company needs to expand the capacity of its system. Similarly,
> IPhone users pay their internet server provider for access to certain
> servers (news, IRC, etc.), and have paid for the right to use the
> functions provided by those serves with any client they choose. If a
> particular IRC operator makes the irrational decision to ban a particular
> client software, that reflects poorly on them, not me. What the hell
> difference does it make that the client software a particular user
> selects happens to not be freeware?
Here, Bill, is where you're wrong. Iphone users do not pay for
the use of EFNET. EFNET is run voluntarily on machines donated
for the its operation. So stop bitching about how you pay for
EFNET, because you absolutely do not. And you have no right to
use EFNET. It's been the goodwill of administrators who donate
their time and find machines to run the server on that has made
EFNET possible. They have the right to ban anyone they choose
to ban.
Usenet is different since the news is stored on a machine owned
or paid for by your internet provider.
I mean what are all you Iphone people looking for? If you want
to run Iphone, no one's stopping you. They are stopping you
from using machines that are not yours to use. Vocaltech has
apparently gotten the hint and has set up a server especially
for you people.
Jake [WinterHawk] Khuon
Todd (t...@cris.com) was rumoured to have written:
tjv> Its basically a problem with the new technology trying to compete with new
tjv> technology. Most Ops and Cops and especially people running BOTs that like
This is correct to an extent. The old technology simply cannot support the
new technology thus they have to be split apart. This does not mean the new
technology has to be forsaken for the older one... only that one cannot and
should not rely on the other to operate. Would you allow the speed limit on
US roads today to be raised into the hundreds of MPH just because cars have
the ability to go that fast? I don't think so... the roads weren't designed
for it. An offramp has a posted speed limit because some swift civil
engineer figured out a certain range (and buffered it) of speeds a typical
car could negotiate it at.
tjv> to play god on IRC cant stand IPhone because it takes them OUT of the game.
Can't speak for those who run bots, but for those who develop IRC
client/server codes it puts more WORK into it. Now if Vocaltec would share
in some of this work rather than simply contributing to the workload...
tjv> And because it is new and exciting it has the OLD TIMERS nervous and cranky
tjv> because they arent sure what they are going to do about.
I think most IRCadmins/ops were fairly sure about what to do about it and
they did it.
tjv> Saying that IPhone is (or going to be) banned from IRC (internet relay CHAT
tjv> isnt it?) because it is a commercial product is crap. Eighty percent of
I'll agree on this point. The point is not necessarily that it's commercial
but that it causes the rest of the IRC cumminity grief and makes things
harder on those who are trying to keep the network up and running on a
volunteer basis. Again, if Vocaltec contributed to the efforts made by
server developers, opers, and admins or at least had consulted first about
the impact their product would make, then things probably would have been
different.
tjv> everyone on IRC is on commercially in some form or another. Cris.com is
tjv> commercial, so is WSIRC-r that I use, so that point is null and void.
tjv> On the other hand Volatec should have at least talked with the server
tjv> owners/operators to find out if there software was going to cause problems.
Ditto. Vocaltec should also have KNOWN or estimated the kind of problems
their clients might cause. It's not hard to set up test servers and monitor
what's going on (Hendrix did just that) unless of course they really do have
no clue about how an IRC net works.
tjv> By the way has anyone NOT been able to log onto IRC because of IPhone? Has
tjv> anyone seen any greater Lag times because of it??? Doubt it!
Sometimes it's not evident to the average user the kind of things
admins/opers/developers have to pull out of their asses just to keep an IRC
network up (it's a losing battle at this moment) and things like IPhone do
not help the situation. Here's a simplified analogy:
Say you run a chain of restaurants. A lot of these restaurants are situated
on well travelled roads as are a lot of other restaurants in order to
attract customers. Now let's say a busline company decides to make it
policy without first obtaining your permission to use your restaurants on
their routes as bathroom stopping points for their riders. Now the busses
stops only for as long as it takes their riders to get off, go into your
bathroom, and use it before driving off. There's no return to you because
their riders don't have enough time to purchase any food from you. The
busline doesn't reimberse you either. Who's maintaining those bathrooms?
You. Who's having to spend extra time/manpower that could be used to serve
the "real" customers (ones who are actually buying things from you) to make
sure the bathrooms remain stocked and usable due to the extra usage by the
busriders? You. Who are offset and can't themselves get to use the
bathrooms because they're always in use by busriders? You AND your regular
customers. Everyone is being burdened except... guess who? The busriders.
And who's reaping the rewards for this? The bus companies because they
don't need to maintain heavy duty facilities devoted to their riders. Their
customers are happy because they get to have a place to piss. Yours are
pissed because they can't get service while you and your employees are busy
maintaining the bathrooms. And who's going to have to spend
time/money/effort in expanding their establishment in order to absorb the
extra load? You. ... I can go on and on so I won't.
Get the picture? What would YOU do?
Note - It'd probably be an even more accurate analogy if the restaurants
were non-profit museums and its "customers" were people actually there to
see the displays but I think you all see what I'm getting at. Or maybe not.
Well, I tried.
tjv> Remember what IRC stands for--- internet relay "CHAT". Does CHAT mean we
tjv> have to type into the next century?
It does if ircd can't support anything more which at the moment it really
can't.
--
/*=========================================================================+
| Jake [WinterHawk] Khuon /|~|~|~~ A D V A N C E D |
| kh...@Albany.Net /-| | |__ Technology Concepts |
+=========================================================================*/
HaeMaker
It seems to me that the "Fear of Change" is alive and well. I think the real
point here is that the Old Fashioned IRC chatters don't want to change. They
think, anything you can't get in a shell account over a 2400bps modem isn't
worth having, or using.
Go ahead and enjoy your Horse and Buggy, I prefer to fly.
About bandwidth, WWW wins, hands down. 90% of the time I spend using NetScape
is data transfers. Those run at 2.8/kbps, A little under three times that of
IPhone.
And about this talk of using a service for which it was not intended, as I
understand it, APRA created the Internet for Mail, FTP and TELNET, period; not
news, not IRC, not WWW, and certainly not for anyone outside the Federal
Government.
[This signature has been intentionally left blank]
Peat Moss
-=> Hae! Nice "debate" you've got going here.
-=>
-=> It seems to me that the "Fear of Change" is alive and well. I think
the real
-=> point here is that the Old Fashioned IRC chatters don't want to
change. They
-=> think, anything you can't get in a shell account over a 2400bps modem isn't
-=> worth having, or using.
Uh..... nope. don't think that's the prevailing truth that we seem to be
advocating at all. Rather, I found that we were disagreeing with the right
of a group of people to be capitalizing on the labor of the overworked
IRCOps who do so much for us in keeping EFNet running when all it probably
brings them is grief the majority of the time. To the IRCOps, i give a
most heartfelt thanks. And that line about a 2400bps modem, umm.... i
can't remember the last time i used one of them at all. Personally, i've
been on ether and before that a 14,400 for a long time now.
-=>
-=> Go ahead and enjoy your Horse and Buggy, I prefer to fly.
-=>
-=> And about this talk of using a service for which it was not intended, as I
-=> understand it, APRA created the Internet for Mail, FTP and TELNET,
period; not
-=> news, not IRC, not WWW, and certainly not for anyone outside the Federal
-=> Government.
Well, that was true. Yeah, right up till the early 80's or so maybe. And
here i was almost thinking that it was the 1990's and that ARPA had pretty
much ceded it's control over the majority of the internet. And when ARPA
was running the Internet, it was ARPANet and was definitely also for
research institutions that usually lie outside the Federal Government.
--
Bruce Mitchener, Jr.
st93...@post.drexel.edu
Peaty@IRC
Craig A. Huegen
>Is this really true? Sure some are, but aren't many being run be
>commercial internet service providers who paid for their computers and who
>promise their customers access to their IRC server, and whose operators
>draw a salary.
Then they are at the mercy of the server's uplinks; sure, they can
promise their customers access to their IRC server, but if their uplink
doesn't want it, then obviously, people will be on a lone server.
I think the whole Iphone business is out of hand. It's considered out of
hand when I have 4 "information technology" magazines PLUS vocaltec
trying to call me to find out why I think Vocaltec should have provided
their own server in the first place.
It's simple; It would have been in Vocaltec's best interest to provide
their own server for Iphone-only use.
/cah
Sven Nielsen
Bill Watts <po...@access4.digex.net> wrote:
>In article <3jnkhk$c...@hustle.rahul.net>,
>C. A. Piepenbring <ji...@rahul.net> wrote:
>>And the thing that seems to zip right by you, over and over again is
>>that the IRC servers are run on DONATED machines and DONATED time of
>>a lot of people of people who are not getting paid for doing this.
>
>Is this really true? Sure some are, but aren't many being run be
>commercial internet service providers who paid for their computers and who
>promise their customers access to their IRC server, and whose operators
>draw a salary.
irc.netcom.com: 1 admin.
irc.ais.net: 3 admins.
irc.gate.net: 1 admin, not paid to run the IRC server.
irc.escape.com: 2 admins and 3+ vanity (well, the opers are also opers
on other EFnet servers). 1 admin owns the service,
the other is a user.
irc.primenet.com: 1 listed admin, 2 unlisted.
irc.neosoft.com: 2 admins.
irc.aol.com: 1 paid admin.
irc.delphi.com: 1 paid admin.
world.std.com: 8 admins
irc.mcs.net: 1 admin.
irc.texas.net: 3 admins.
irc.apk.net: 1 admin.
irc.digex.net: 1 admin.
*** There are 4033 users and 3080 invisible on 99 servers
*** making a total of 7113 users online.
13% of IRC servers, probably even less, are being run by companies that
pay an admin.
>If you can't get your first sentence to be factually accurate, why should I
>continue reading and bother to think about the merits of whatever
>argument followed?
Amazing..that's exactly what I say when I see your posts...
--Dalvenjah FoxFire, the Teddy Dragon
dalv...@dal.net
dalvenjah on DALnet, the best IRC net on the planet!
/serv irc.dal.net 7000 or telnet telnet.dal.net 12345 to try it out!
--
____ _ _ _ "I had the dagger in my hand, and he has
| _ \ __ _| |_ _____ _ _ (_)__ _| |_the indecency to start dying on his own!"
| |_) / _` | \ V / -_) ' \ | / _` | ' \ --Ambassador G'kar, Babylon 5
|____/\__,_|_|\_/\___|_||_|/ \__,_|_||_| FoxFire -- dalv...@dal.net -- (SN90)
Dave Getts
Blipper NY <ba-...@interport.net> wrote:
>Once again I will say:
>
>Iphone is NOT about saving on long distance (while it certainly can do that).
>It's about people using another form of programmed tool to COMMUNICATE WITH
>EACH OTHER.
Hi, can tell you about the Telephone?
This guy a couple years back made this neato invention called a telephone,
I think his name was Alex G. Bell or something. Never the less, his invention
is pretty cool and stuff.
-dwg
Dave Getts
Bill Watts <po...@access1.digex.net> wrote:
>it is direct IP to IP). To discriminate against a user because the client
>software is not freeware is irrational. To discriminate against an IPhone
Who died and made IRC a rational place?
---
This thread is getting too long, I can't wait 'til this newsgroup is back to
normal with the "Where can I telnet for k-rad bot?" posts. I thought I'd never
see the day where an actual semi-coherent discussion went on regarding some
issue about IRC.
-dwg
firebug
: ->Not so with Iphone. When you send email, you use a small number of
: ->bytes. Same with regular irc. Using Iphone uses roughly 100 times the
: ->bandwith to convey the same information. And the user of Iphone does not
: ->bear this cost, he passes it on to other users.
: can you back this claim up with some hard numbers?
: if not, retract this OPINION which you are trying assert is FACT.
Wow are you dumb if you can't see that what he said is obvious.
OK, take that sample statement, and transmit it text. 64 bytes. Now transmit
it voice. Assume it takes 5 seconds to say *28.8kbps/8b/B=18,000 bytes.
18000/64=281 times the bandwidth. At 14.4k it's 140 times the bandwidth.
Now, what part of that is unclear?
Shawn
: In <D55r0...@rco.qc.ca> bo...@marcy.interax.net (Bob Marcy) writes:
: >Question...if IRC2 includes voice in a future version as is rumored will you
: >enforce this ban on Mr. Samsi's product as well?
: I *live* with the ircII maintainer, and I can say with great authority that
: there are *NO* plans to incorporate "voice" into ircII at the moment.
Actually, I believe Bob was speaking of WS_IRC (and I only think that
because he mentioned the author's name, "Mr. Samsi"). Ceasar Samsi is
the author of WS_IRC.
Shawn
--
/=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=\
| Shawn McCullar | Fer sell cheep: IBM spel |
| A.K.A. sout...@best.com | chekker. Wurks grate. |
\=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=/
Jake [WinterHawk] Khuon
Bill Watts (po...@access1.digex.net) was rumoured to have written:
BW> The problem with your analogy is that it implies that the people in the
BW> restaurant had paid to use the bathrooms, while the bus riders had not.
They had. The restaurants provide the bathrooms as a service to their
patrons. Part of the cost of the food goes into the overhead of maintaining
the restaurant. Someone has to pay for the manpower used in cleaning the
bathrooms, power for the lights in there, water bills, etc... These costs
are not being absorbed in any way by the bussing company or the riders.
BW> In fact, the bus riders weren't leeching, they paid exactly the same as
Think again. Do the bus riders provide any extra business for the
restaurant as a restaraunt establishment? I think not. However, they do
impact the resources of the services.
BW> the customers. This is because everybody using IRC, whether with ASCII
BW> chat oriented clients or a certain client that coded a subset of the
BW> server's functions, pretty much paid the same to be there (they paid their
BW> internet provider, who in turn paid for internet access, which in turn was
BW> used to purchase the infrastructure).
Moot point. If an IRCadmin/oper sees a user as being disruptive to his/her
server then that admin/oper has every right to ban the user or group of
users from the server. IRC is not an equal opportunity area. If I as a
restaurant owner find I'm spending a lot of my resources maintaining
bathrooms for people who aren't paying dividends to my establishment and
because of that, I'm always short on manpower and losing profits then you
can be damn sure I'll put up a sign forbidding that kind of drain on my
resources. IRCadmins/opers of EFnet simply do not wish to support IPhone.
Get it? Got it? Good.
BW> The museum variation of your analogy is also flawed. The voice chat
BW> people are analogous to a group that, having paid as much or more taxes as
BW> others in support of the museum, enjoyed two of the three wings of the
I pay my taxes too. Should I and all my friends be allowed to go into say
the Dickson Federal Courthouse in Chicago, IL, USA and hog up the revolving
doors by walking around in circles inside them without getting out for hours
on end?
BW> place. It seems that many people before and since their visit also only
BW> visit the two wings, but certain people who believe the "original purpose"
BW> of the museum was the specialness of the third wing insist that anybody
BW> who happens to have a musuem guide published by a certain vendor of guides
BW> that doesn't describe the third wing (because the third wing doesn't
BW> interest the users who selected that particular guide) should be banned
Everyobdy is using the third wing. However, traditional irc clients aren't
ABUSING it. If the group who likes to visit just the third wing of the
museum does nothing but run around through it in a fashion that is
disruptive to the other visitors, then yes... they will be banned from entry
to the museum.
BW> from entering the museum. There is no crisis, and even if there were,
BW> there are numerous other ways to reorganize the musuem: they could close
There is a crisis because that certain group who insists on using the "third
wing" is abusing the "third wing" to the point where it's affacting everyone
else. Now, why should the maintainers of the museum be forced into
reorganising anything just because the group that likes to use the "third
wing" causes a problem? Why should IRCadmins/ops be forced to put more time
and effort into IRC without compensation because suddenly there's a quantum
surge of resource strain which they're not yet ready to handle? Simply put,
EFnet is not ready for IPhone. It cannot handle IPhone usage. Maybe one of
these days, some server coder will revamp the code or release a brand new
server which will allow EFnet to deal with IPhone but that isn't the case
now. We're having enough problems as it is keeping the network running with
normal growth rates of resource usage. EFnet cannot handle the kind of
impact that an IPhone public would impose.
BW> the second "binary transfer" wing, since that seems to be the wing that is
BW> attracting people (regardless of their guidebooks) that are not interested
Do you understand how ircd works? I think not. The reason EFnet has been
able to ban IPhone is because IPhone clients makes themselves recognisable
as a certain group. They have to otherwise the whole idea of using ircd as
a "411 information service" wouldn't work. Because each IPhone client is
configured in such a way as to tell the rest of the world "Hey, I'm an
IPhone client... here I am," then it is easy to detect and ban them.
Someone on a normal client doing DCC transfers looks just like any other
client. DCC is handled at the client level. Sure there's a message sent
between two clients before the actual DCC is established but unless
IRCadmins/ops want to start filtering private messages (which can lead to
all sorts of other unethical side-effects), there's no real feasible way to
prevent DCC SEND/GET. When certain servers began to disallow IPhone, they
were only able to do so because IPhone has a signature fingerprint with
which to detect and target them by.
BW> in the third wing, or they could subdivide the musuem among major topic
BW> groups, so that an overload of people weren't trying to get through the
Or, they could simply tell the group who likes to just visit the third wing
and run around in it to set up their own museum in which they can do that.
As ckd has said over and over again, EFnet and IPhone do not NEED to
coexist.
BW> first "state information storage" wing at once. But no. They decide to
BW> post a guard at the door that screens visitors on the basis of the
BW> identity of the publisher of the guidebook they are holding. Bizzare.
No, they decided to screen people who try and walk in with loud radios and
track shoes that have 1/4" spikes. IPhone puts a strain on the servers.
They are a targettable group. You can also bet that clonebots and floodbots
are a problem too but they are less easy to get rid of through a network
wide server level ban (although there has been a fair degree of success in
this area such as disallowing mixed-case usernames). Basically, you do what
you can.
Bill Watts
Jake [WinterHawk] Khuon <kh...@Albany.Net> wrote:
>resources. IRCadmins/opers of EFnet simply do not wish to support IPhone.
>Get it? Got it? Good.
Your conclusion is your argument. We know that. It's the calling card of
irrationality.
>I pay my taxes too. Should I and all my friends be allowed to go into say
>the Dickson Federal Courthouse in Chicago, IL, USA and hog up the revolving
>doors by walking around in circles inside them without getting out for hours
>on end?
>
But how would you like it you were kicked out on the basis of the brand of
shoe you were wearing (there was that big "Nike" label), but all your
friends were allowed to continue using the revolving door service? It
would seem a tad irrational.
>
>Everyobdy is using the third wing. However, traditional irc clients aren't
In my example, the third wing was ASCII chat. Apparently I was unclear.
>disruptive to the other visitors, then yes... they will be banned from entry
>to the museum.
I don't think there is any serious question of Iphone users disrupting
anybody else. The issue was framed in terms of additional load.
>now. We're having enough problems as it is keeping the network running with
>normal growth rates of resource usage. EFnet cannot handle the kind of
>impact that an IPhone public would impose.
Why the "impact of non-English speakers would impose from newly wired
nations" isn't also a crisis is unclear. If the problem is long term
overload potential, this argues in favor of my point; that dividing the
network on virtually any basis would be more rational than the brand of
client software the user happens to choose.
>Someone on a normal client doing DCC transfers looks just like any other
>client. DCC is handled at the client level. Sure there's a message sent
Looks to me they are in "GIF" channels, as identifiable as an "IPHONE"
channel. Where are you going with this? /DCC transfers could be
disabled if ASCII chatting were the sole purpose of IRC. It's not, and
they aren't.
I don't dispute that the identity of the client software is discernable,
and therefore the ban iphone patch works.
>all sorts of other unethical side-effects), there's no real feasible way to
>prevent DCC SEND/GET. When certain servers began to disallow IPhone, they
Of course it could be patched out of the code. Disabled. Not compatible
with the purpose of IRC.
>As ckd has said over and over again, EFnet and IPhone do not NEED to
>coexist.
No question about this. And most topics are of no interest to any
particular user. The point is that no rational reason or exigent
circumstance exists to compel the ban of users who selected to use certain
existing server functions that they would be entitled to use if they had
selected any other brand of client software.
>No, they decided to screen people who try and walk in with loud radios and
>track shoes that have 1/4" spikes. IPhone puts a strain on the servers.
It's a subjective strain, not an objective one. The load is the same as
any other user, if not less. It is perceived to be a strain because, well,
err, ummm, . . . because, ahh, its a strain. That's the point.
>Basically, you do what you can.
I appreciate this. I really do. But its no excuse for inanity. To par
down the load, which "unauthorized" client is to be banned next, and what
are the criteria?
--
Bill Watts
po...@access.digex.net
Bonzo
>You pay to access the PROVIDER'S services only. This does *NOT* include
>other services on the internet, which are provided free by OTHERS. If I
>run an IRC server, and you connect to it from a different provider, I
>have EVERY right to ban you if I see fit.
Thats the BOTTOM LINE and I AGREE WHOLEHEARTEDLY. It is YOUR
server, if YOU don't want someone using it, thats your problem. It is for a good
reason too, but that doesn't even matter.
SOMEONE forgot that the INTERNET is not a right, it is a priveledge and
he is just ticked off because he spent cash on something he can't use.
HA! I feel sorry for him eh?
*************************************************************************
* Lanny Stewart, Mission, BC., Canada * No smart assed comment to *
* E-Mail: lste...@direct.ca * put in here yet. :-) *
*************************************************************************
DeadelviS
> DeadelviS <de...@america.com> wrote:
> >Shut the f**k up you whining Iphone users. Bitch at vocaltec because
> >the whole damn thing is their fault. Bitching here isn't going to help...
> >why? Because we don't give a damn about your problems! I don't care how
> >little bandwidth it uses... I don't care what your feelings are on what IRC
> >"should" be... I don't care that IRCops banned IPhone whatever their reasons
> >are. Tough f**king luck. You are NOT the first.
> >Yell at Vocaltec to get their own network up ASAP... that MAY help you.
> >Yell at Vocaltec for being lazy bastards and not coding a better way
> >to hook up in the first place.
> >Run your own servercode... It's really not that hard!
> Was this really called for. All this person did was voice his/her opinion,
> as yourself and just had to flame.
> Ken
Yes this was called for... if you have been following this whole iphone thing
you will see it is totally justified. Upon closer examination of my flame
you will also notice two things: 1) it's only directed to iphone users
who have been whineing for weeks now and 2) there is actually alot of
help for these idiots included in the flame if they care to use some
common sence. Beating your head on a brick wall would probably do you more
good than trying to make things change here.
"It's fortunate this newsgroup exists, lest these troubled people resort
to kicking puppies or something" -Lamont Wood The_Net_After_Dark
----
DeadelviS
http://www.america.com/~dead/www/index.html
Frank Thomas
: In article <3k4r7i$m...@apollo.albany.net>,
: Jake [WinterHawk] Khuon <kh...@Albany.Net> wrote:
: Yes, virtually everybody, no matter what their client, does a list command
: when they sign on. This proves nothing.
Ok, so maybe there are idiots out there who like to do a /list on
every join. . . . at least they don't quit and rejoin every 60 seconds.
When you dig your head out of your ass and read what Helen said about
1.27 fucking percent of the server load/network broadcasting (I mean only
inter server, not even talking about your "talking") you MIGHT see why
everyone is up at arms.
: >[2] Causes the server to propogate USER, NICK, AWAY, JOIN (to multiple
: > channels), and SIGNOFF
: Yes, this is true no matter what client happens to be in use.
Wrong, not every 60 seconds. or regularly in the caase of the list
: >
: >[3] Contributes to the amount of state information propogated around the
: > network when there really is no logically reason to do so
: Again, the argument is the conclusion. As I said, what you articulated is
: that Iphone should be banned because it is abuse, and it is abuse because
: it shouldn't be a permissible client. Entirely circular. No matter how
: strongly you feel about the matter, you are not making valid arguments.
It is abuse because it abuses a preexisting network without interacting with
most of it's MAIN functions/features. If there weren't X dozen people
quitting and signing on (and doing a list and putting up that huge /away)
every 60 seconds, this probably wouldn't be a big issue. And if the
registered users (who I'm assuiming can stay on for long periods of time
(then again I've seen some ping out)) could talk to the other users on irc
(you know, chat, text, like what you are reading now) then there would most
likely be no problem.
[Blah blah blah]
: to justify such sweeping, vindictive action, other than the rank
: speculation that a swarm of thousands were about to descend on those
: precious sockets.
You're damn right they are precious sockets, there is a limited number that
each server can handle, more importantly, the net as a whole can only
handle so many users, and a few hundred extra that do nothing but sponge
off of a function of the servers (who can't even talk to anyone else other
than by using their nicks) don't help the state of the net.
[blah blah]
- Me
Steve Work
: In article <3jkk8e$e...@quilla.tezcat.com>, kidf...@tezcat.com (the searcher) writes:
: Audio real-time by definition puts a larger load on the internet. The
: load on actual IRC doesn't sound like much, but the load on internet would
: seem to be a good bit more. The Iphone people would be helping their case
: by posting some statistics on how well their compression works. Until then,
: you can assume that it takes up a pretty good bit. It would seem that its
: only purpose would be to offer a free alternative to the 900 chat services.
: Is this the type of thing that we want the internet used for?
You're right. I'd like to think of the Internet as a means of
transmitting intelligence with its bandwidth. With Iphone, bandwidth
goes up. Intellectual content goes down. Ratio of intellectual content
to bandwidth definitely goes way down.
: I hope we hear some evidence refuting this. But until then, I will assume
: iphone will only contribute to "the death of the internet as we know it".
As I see it, there is no way it will kill the Internet. What it will,
very likely, is kill flat-rate access. Gone will be the days when you
can do anything you want on the net for a fixed price. I hope (and
expect to see) rate structures put in place which allow low-bandwidth
activities (i.e. email) to be accessed free of per-use charges, with the
bandwidth hogs paying a fair price for their "free" calls.
Voice on the net is good, if used in small amounts. We can't however
just give it in unlimited quantities to everyone.
Alan Gahtan
> : When an IPhone client connects, it takes up a connection to the server
> : which someone else could use. Servers are limited to the number of
> : connections they accept so they don't try to "server" more users then
> : they can handle. VocalTech said they would be putting up a server of
> : their own so we'll see what happens, but most of the IrcOpers have
> : already begun to ban them--there's a patch out now to keep them off.
>
Maybe Vocaltec could re-write Internet Phone to incorporate a text based IRC client also. It could even include a bot which sent out
useless random text message to make it look like it was a real IRC user.
I think a lot of people have over-reacted. I have yet to see more than 40-50 Internet Phone users on line at any one time.
Presumably that is not even 5% of the text-base IRC network bandwidth.
===============================================================
Alan Gahtan - Barrister & Solicitor
Preferred E-Mail> aga...@io.org
Personal WEB URL> http:\\www.io.org\~agahtan\agahtan.htm
Index to Legal Resources> http:\\www.io.org\~agahtan\master.htm
================================================================
Damon Chetson
are saying. Stop posting the same damn points over and over
again after they have been refuted. It makes you look like a
twit.
The first point is: IPHONE DOES NOT NEED TO USE EFNET. That's
why it should be and was banned. IPHONE can use ANY group of
linked servers. People who want to chat with other people use
EFNET.
po...@access4.digex.net writes:
>
> You're admitting that the client uses existing server functions that every
> other client uses. That's my point. For instance:
>
> >[1] Draws around 30K of data upon every signon
>
> Yes, virtually everybody, no matter what their client, does a list command
> when they sign on. This proves nothing.
Yes, but I think Oldpink has said repeatedly that IPHONE
clients do these commands every minute.
> >[3] Contributes to the amount of state information propogated around the
> > network when there really is no logically reason to do so
>
> Again, the argument is the conclusion. As I said, what you articulated is
> that Iphone should be banned because it is abuse, and it is abuse because
> it shouldn't be a permissible client. Entirely circular. No matter how
> strongly you feel about the matter, you are not making valid arguments.
It should be banned from EFNET because it doesn't NEED EFNET.
>
> Yes, Iphone uses a socket. So does every other hobbyist out there who
> logs in with a non-Iphone client. Iphone does a list command when the
Yes, but other hobbyists are using EFNET to chat via text which
is what EFNET was for. IPHONE DOES NOT NEED TO USE EFNET, IT
CAN JUST AS EASILY USE ANOTHER SET OF SERVERS WITHOUT USING ITS
FUNCTIONALITY. PEOPLE WHO WANT TO USE EFNET CAN NOT SIMPLY
SET UP SERVERS BECAUSE CHANCES ARE NO ONE WILL BE ON THEM.
> software. Surely, there is no credible showing of exigent circumstances
> to justify such sweeping, vindictive action, other than the rank
> speculation that a swarm of thousands were about to descend on those
> precious sockets.
Vindictive means out of spite or revenge. That was not what
happened. Rank speculation means entirely without basis in
fact. That's not what happened.
Mark Hunnibell
There are many system admins that disallow IRC on their services
even via Telnet. This is based on their assessment of IRC as a
worthless and parasitical element that will only tie up their
limited dialup lines with very slow rate ASCII chat. They see
IRC as a magnet to people without a life who will become so
absorbed in it that they will lose touch with reality while also
using the limited dialups they have to offer.
In this context, IPhone is no worse. I doubt there will be the
same addictive phenomenon associated with IPhone as there is with
IRC, but the point is that it still ties up lines for things
that are not very productive. At least with FTP, they probably
figure that you connect and get what you want and get off. Then
comes WWW... a surfers dream. These system admins probably don't
have to contend with this issue just yet because they are running
non-SLIP dialup hosts to server their users.
There are very few legitimate uses for IRC and if you folks don't
stop throwing all those stones around, you'll break some of the
glass walls in your own house.
The less said about IPhone, the better, IMHO.
Mark Hunnibell
hunn...@cris.com
Dave Getts
-dwg
Dave Getts
Would someone kindly reply to one of these never ending Iphone articles and
include that FlashBomb thingy that was posted awhile back as the new topic.
-dwg
Dave Getts
>in addition, iphone does not contribute to the internet either. at least
>this point could be given to the web servers.
>
>I really wish that people would stick to the telephone. its a more
>efficient client, internet-wise.
There should be some kind of Internet DNR (Department of Natural Resources) That
maintains some kind of virgin band width just so the Net doesn't go to hell.
Who know's, the now common HNG could follow along the lines of the now
endangered Spotted Owl.
-dwg
Steve Work
: I wonder what wastes more bandwidth, all the Iphone usage or this thread.
Which takes more bandwidth, this thread or 30 minutes of idle chit-chat
by a student?
How many students would limit their chit-chat to 30 minutes if it were
free and unlimited?
Steve Work
: Would someone kindly reply to one of these never ending Iphone articles and
: include that FlashBomb thingy that was posted awhile back as the new topic.
: -dwg
Won't stop me, cause I'm totally immune to it. Also, it would be quite
easy to just continue the discussion on another thread.
Sean Mullally
"dead air". Let's be realistic, Internet bandwidth, voice traffic and other
high bandwidth apps are just going to increase. Eventually everything
will go to optical fiber and ATM, then you will be measuring your bandwidth
not in Kbps but Gigabites per second and who will care about Iphone, which
by the way takes up 7.7kbps of bandwidth for a voice connection, which is
excellent compression considering a telephone voice connection is 64Kbps.
Oh, and that is less than a web browser uses too.
-sean
Steve Work
: That would be rather wasteful to designate a certian portion of bandwidth to
: "dead air". Let's be realistic, Internet bandwidth, voice traffic and other
: high bandwidth apps are just going to increase. Eventually everything
: will go to optical fiber and ATM, then you will be measuring your bandwidth
: not in Kbps but Gigabites per second and who will care about Iphone, which
: by the way takes up 7.7kbps of bandwidth for a voice connection, which is
: excellent compression considering a telephone voice connection is 64Kbps.
: Oh, and that is less than a web browser uses too.
I don't disagree that this will eventually happen. However,I don't see
it happening overnight. More realistically this might be a reality 10-20
years from now.
In the meantime, especially in the next 5 years, there will be many parts
of the net where bandwidth is NOT unlimited. Both Web browsers and
Iphone can cause problems. I know firsthand that Web browsers, while
they are certainly a good idea, can cause problems in companies where
there are inadequate connections. In one example company, they have a
single T1 serving 10,000 users. This worked well for news and email, but
now that they are promoting WWW everywhere, there are lots of problems.
Just starting Mosaic takes 30 seconds, and it crashes and locks up
frequently. It will take them several years probably to upgrade the
connection.
And Iphone can certainly cause a bandwidth problem. The only reason is
does not today is because so few (less than 1 in 10,000) users use it.
As soon as this level approaches 1%, we will have a big problem. The
only way I see around this is to implement per-use charges which put
Iphone use on a par with telephone service. The rates for calling
through the telephone and Iphone cannot have a huge disparity. Either
Iphone must increase in cost or phone service will need to go down.
Unlimited worldwide calling for $20/month is NOT going to be a reality in
the next 5 years. Therefore, the possibility of doing this with Internet
connections primarily designed for data will not be a reality either. My
prediction is that net access provided for single users and students will
carry a per-use charge of about $2/hour for domestic access and $20 per
hour for international access. These charges will be incurred for data
rates typical of a voice connection regardless of what type of data is
being transferred. Hopefully (and probably so), worldwide news, email,
and limited ftp will be free of per-use charges.