NetNews Usenet Archive 1992 #16/NN_1992_16.iso/spool/alt/irc/2518

Text File | 1992-07-25 | 7.3 KB | 142 lines

Newsgroups: alt.irc
Path: sparky!uunet!noc.near.net!news.cs.brandeis.edu!chaos.cs.brandeis.edu!oren
From: [e-mail] (Oren Kastner)
Subject: Re: Useless Bots
Message-ID: <[e-mail]>
Sender: [e-mail] (USENET News System)
Organization: Brandeis University
References: <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]> <[e-mail]>
Date: Sun, 26 Jul 1992 03:57:08 GMT
Lines: 130


In article <[e-mail]> you write:

[I'm sure you don't mind me editing my previous comments out, as I know what
 I wrote. :-]

[ -=- About Avalon -=- ]
>Lots of times people put /aways on even though they are there, just to
>keep people from bothering them.  (A la Trillian)

That wasn't my point.  My point was that someone such as Avalon (and Trillian)
have an process running and logged into IRC 24 hrs/day.  You can't say a bot
wastes CPU cycles and bandwidth because more than likely a bot generates less
traffic than say Avalon's process!

>The big difference here is the relevence of traffic he creates...he's a person
>He reads things, and sends things out.  rots don't read anything, they
>don't send anything out that isn't preprogrammed into it.

So? How does the generation of ``random'' information should be deemed as more
important than pre-programmed one?  Seems silly to me.  For example, you /msg
avalon and he doesn't know who you are so he does a /whois on you.  Right there
he generates traffic that a bot might NEVER do -- as you said, it only
generates whatever traffic it was preprogrammed to output.  Also, there is less
overhead when considering the chance that a bot will get into a
``conversation'' with someone -- as a ``human'' on IRC might.


[ -=- About Moose -=- ]
>Well one thing if he's not the admin at his site he might not want to attract
>his attention.  ircII is a CPU user, and IRCII script bots are pretty much

So you are justifying his actions by suggesting he might be running a server
without the cooperation of his Sys Admin?  I would think that the Sys Admin's
support would be *VERY* important in running your own server.  The only
servers that wouldn't have their Sys Admin's support would proabably be
vanity servers -- and its already been established (by some) that there are
already too many of those around.  I'm stressing here the fact that this is
NOT a client that the average joe can compile and keep in his/her account
[resources permitting], but a server that needs extra attention and a Sys
Admin's approval to make it into an offical resource.

>wasting a WHOLE lot of CPU because they are running all the IRCII code just to
>use the ircII scripting language to make a bot.  If people start using
>up CPU time for irc, then the admin might cut it off, and let people do
>=REAL= work on the machines.

This is *NOT* the point here!  My point was that there is this ``elite bunch''
that have taken it upon themselves to decide whether or not bots are worthy
of existence on IRC.  If there is a resource problem that is the business of
the Sys Admin and user in question.  *THEY* can sort out the fine details of
what is allowed and when.  But for the three I mentioned to decide for
everyone is pretty ludicrous.

>Copyleft applies to code...not the people who use it.  the ircnetwork isn't
>governed by GNU in any way...that's what the whole anarchy thing is about
>Down with the establishment!  (Even though, w/o an establishment there is
>always a few people who basically take it's place)

You have missed my point, again. [Did I underexplain it that much?]  I am not
talking about the code for anything and who is governing the IRCnet.  I'm
talking about IRC being a program that was developed to promote interactions
between individuals and communications between different cultures.  And then
having some people decide how someone is fit to ``express'' themselves.  What
if I want to write a bot that explains my background and culture.  You will
consider it useless, but hey, that is how *I* want to express myself to the
rest of the world.  What makes YOUR opinion more authoritative than mine?

>Well it is a lot of their businesses because they run servers...they might
>not want all the traffic that bots create on there. 0Vanity channel op bots
>create a lot of mode traffic.  And cause general problems for people.

Wowowo, hold on a minute.  When you run a server it is NO business of yours
how many users you have on the server and what/who they are -- UNLESS they
cause problems (like harassment).  Other than THAT, if you see someone called
``BuckTooth'', why should it make a difference to you if that is a regular
user or a bot (program)?  You are there to provide and manage a service, NOT
to ``select'' who is fit to be honored by your approval.  If you decide that
your server can't handle the ``load'' then maybe you should think about
restricting hosts from which you will accept connections rather than kicking
of users you think are bots who are just a waste or your time and resources.
If resources is that much of a concern to you then maybe you should think
twice about whether you are fit to run a server or not.

>If you've ever noticed very few people have written their OWN code...they
>just get code form other people to use...they aren't really learning it.

Hmm... I think your definition of what learning is all about is a bit
distorted.  Learning does NOT entail being able to program.  You have to
start somewhere -- noone is born all-knowing.  For you learning might have
began when you coded your own bot.  For someone else learning might come
from just adjusting to running the code and interacting with it as well as
maybe trivially modifying it to suit their needs.  For others, just typing
``irc'' for the first time is an exercise in learning.  But just because
someone doesn't have the knowhow of scripting does not mean that person is
unable to learn from maintaining a pre-written script.

>Though I can say I did learn about the scripting language by writing my
>own, not everyone does.  I found the script language limiting for any
>'useful' sort of robot, so I wrote my own code.

That's great for YOU, but you can't judge others by those standards.  For
some, /on's and the rest of the ircII command set is more than enough to
provide them with what they consider a ``useful'' sort of robot.

>The biggest problem I see with most robots is that they are written with
>ircII scripts...thereby wasting a lot of resources...

You have to start somewhere.  Maybe writing it with ircII will encourage
him/her to follow in your footsteps and write something that might either
be ``more efficient'' or ``more versatile/flexible'' type of bot.  But if
you take the opportunity of starting ``small'' you are jeopardizing his/her
progress into ``bigger/better'' things.  Secondly, I restate my former
comments.  No matter HOW much resources these bots use its *NOT* our place
to decide what is or isn't appropriate.  That is a matter between the user
and the Sys Admin of the machine where the resources are spent.  Of course,
that is only my opinion, but I can't see how you can argue that we should
meddle in their ``internal'' affairs.

>-Alex

S'more of my $0.50 :-)

Laterz,
    Oren.
--

Oren Kastner                           E-mail address:

Brandeis University                    [e-mail]