oren@chaos.cs.brandeis.edu (Oren Kastner) was telling me...
>In article <1992Jul26.020711.29624@rat.csc.calpoly.edu> you write:
>[ -=- About Avalon -=- ]
>>Lots of times people put /aways on even though0they 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!
Not really, considering when they are /away their connections don't do
anything. They don't make any mode changes, they don't spew out files
or anything. Sounds like a lot less traffic to me.
>>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 ``random7' information should be deemed as more
>important than pre-programmed one? Seems silly to me. 0For example, you /msg
Well what would you rather see?
*GnricBot* I don't talk, I'm just a robot.
*Avalon* Don't bother me! I'm a hard working coder!
<grin>
Granted this might be a bad exmaple, but I would rather listen to a real
person talk than a robot's limited capacity.
>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.
Channel opping robots do channel ops a lot more than avalon is bound to do
/whois's on you. File spewing robots dump lots more text
than avalon is bound to generate.
>[ -=- 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
I am not talking about the server. I'm talking about the ircII client
package, which he provides. A sys admin is likely to only tolerate so much
For an example, my sys admin here will not tolerate processes left running
while the user is not logged in (which what an irc robot would require)
If he had such a sys admin, having robots running would be bad, but the
client would be ok.
>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.
You're getting confused, I never talked about the cpu usage of the ircd server
I'm talking about the ircII client.
>>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 or0not bots are worth}
>of existence on IRC. If there is a resource problem that is the business of
If you go back and read your own evaluations you will see all it is
are these people's opinions. They aren't forcing you not to run them.
There is no 'rule' against it. (though there was talk of it at times)
You're taking all their comments far too literally. Avalon says
that he will kill any bot on sight. Obviously he doesn't mean it literally
because there are so many bots on IRC now even while he is logged in.
There will always be an 'elite bunch' That's how things work. If you
get rid of one, you will just have a replacement.
>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.
Why not? If they have the sys admins support to run the server, they are
responsible for it. Sys admins don't want to be bothered with every little
thing. Give the server admins some credit!
>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?
Actually, irc was a senior project or some such. I'm sure some IRC historian
can validate this. Well interactions between people and cultures sounds fine,
But robots don't really provide that. And you say what 'if' well go ahead.
I didn't say I considered all robots useless> nickserv, noteserv, and
other =USED= robots are what I consider useful. Vanity, channel reserving,
and text file dumping robots I don't consider useful> And that is the
majority of the kind of robots people run.
I never said my opinion were more authoritative than yours, and I have no idea
where you got that. But I don't have to discuss my personal philosophy on that
here. It's all covered in my .plan.
>>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). ther than THAT, if you see someone called
>``BuckTooth'', why should it make a difference to you$if that is a regular
>user or a bot (program)? You are there to provide and manage a service, NOT
>to ``select'' who is fit to be honored by your approval. If you decide that
>your server can't handle the ``load'' then maybe you should think about
>restricting hosts from which you will accept connections rather than kicking
>of users you think are bots who are just a waste or your time and resources.
>If resources is that much of a concern to you then maybe you should think
>twice about whether you are fit to run a server or not.
Sure it's their business! It's their server...there is no IRC consitution where
servers are a consitutional right and they must be provided for you. They
are not there to 'provide and manage a service' It's not a service and they
don't HAVE to provide anything. It should make a difference between bots
and people because in my opinion peopel are more important. So to improve
things for the real people then they can decide that the people are more
important than the robots. I'm really sticking my neck out here. Because you can say, 'Well where does it stop? how come they get to make the determination of what$is and isnt' good for the rest of the people' etc. $I understand that
I wouldn't want them making all the decisions, but since there is no power
structure, someone has to make a decision sometime.
Hah, but I laugh at your 'solution' You say server ops shouldn't ''select''
who is fit to be honored by their approval, then you turn aroudn and say
well they should RESTRICT who they accept connections from...isn't that
the same thing? They are ''selecting'' again. You can't get away from it.
You can only find thigns you are/arenot willing to do.
>>If you've ever noticed very few people have written their OWN code...they
>>just get code form other people to use...they aren7t 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
I understand they can get a better grasp of how things work jsut by looking
at it, but they way you defended your argument was that their learning
was so dramatic and important. But it doesn't happen in all cases. I
know a few people who run robots, and they have no real idea how ircII works
to begin with.
>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.
Ah see this is the main problem here...the definitions of stuff like
'useful' and who decides on them. You're not gonan be able to please
everyone.
>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
I know of very few robots that aren't ircII scripts. And they have been
around for a LONG time and people have no intent on changing them.
>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.
Well some people who run servers ARE sys admins. And most people who
run servers have to ANSWER to sys admins. If people are using up
resources and other people start complaining to the sys admins, then
the people who are running the servers or clients are gonna get
it. This is just one way of avoiding it.
>>-Alex
--
/-John A Kusters, jr.----------------------------------------------------______
