Ziggy

I brought this up last year (probably not here). Vista's minmum requirements far exceed the typical GAMING machine. My computer would barely support Vista if I chose to install it. This horsepower should be going to.. you guessed it.. GAMES. If Half Life 2 already runs like ass on your hardware, what's it going to run like once you make Windows use as much resources as Half Life 2? Well? It won' t run. GeForce 7800GTXes for everyone! And the encrypted monitors thing... I'm considering writing my elected officials about that. That's bullshit. If I want to watch a movie I bought, I should be able to watch it on whatever damn monitor I want to. With no quality loss. Sure, you can't rip it now... but if I want to watch a HD movie, I want to watch an HD movie in HD on my current HD monitor without upgrading to a new HD monitor which would cost me an assload more money that I already spent on the present HD monitor! It's a way for Microsoft to force you into picking "their" brand of monitor (be it NEC, Samsung, Sony, etc.) fsck that.

uh.. be logical here. English-speaking people read left-to-right. Putting the nicklist on the left would make the text harder to read. that said, the current ignitionLite prototype sucks, so I can't exactly brag about it (yet). We'll see though.

Dude. HTTP/1.1 is 7 or more years old. Possibly he doesn't have a clue what he's talking about? The last browser to support HTTP/1.0 was, IIRC, Netscape 2.0. If his proxy server doesn't allow HTTP/1.1, a good percentage of websites won't work (any of them which run more than one site on the same IP, for example). If he has a proxy server, he'll have to connect to the proxy server, issue the right CONNECT command (I think it's CONNECT destination:port), then send the GET/POST command. Here's what I mean: CONNECT 1.2.3.4:80 GET /whatever.aspx?bg=evil User-Agent: Mozilla/4.0 (compatible; MSIE 6.66; Vincula) That should work. Read the HTTP/1.1 specs for more info.

Yeah. Uh. IRCXpro isn't true IRCX (ignitionServer isn't either, but it's fairly close.. working on it, I swear). But the draft still applies for most things (modes, for example).

Yeah, I know (I noticed from some older posts), but I figured that an official "hey, someone might help you here, but you'll get developer support at the homepage" message might deter people from wasting your time and resources

I also made an annotated IRCX draft that's searchable and HTML if it helps.

Please, if you have a question about ignitionServer, ask it on our site if you want a response from someone on our team. I try to check TG every once in a while, but it could be weeks or months before I respond to you if you post here. So, if you do post here, please also post on our site. I posted this because someone IMed me and asked me why there's no ignitionServer help here... I think that he/she could have been yanking my chain, but still. Make things simple, will ya?

Intel sucks anyways. I'd really love to see people getting AMD processors from companies like Dell. Because AMD processors are better for the most part. I mean, a P4HT may be able to do some operations faster than an Athlon XP, but a person getting a P4HT would probably get an Athlon64 X2, which clearly stomps the P4HT. So, I hope they win. AMD needs more customers than just gamers.

IRC is text-based. No, you cannot embed a web-browser into IRC. Much like you cannot put photos in IRC. This would be a client thing. And really, it'd be a lot less hassle to just have a Firefox window on the top of the screen with the chrome turned off (the menus and junk) doing what you want and the mIRC window doing the IRC. Or, you could embed nHTMLn inside mIRC, but I don't think you can do it on the same tab as the channel.

Know how long they take to burn though? I'd rather have a 60GB iPod Photo with 150MB/sec transfer than pay $30 for a single blu-ray DVD and wait 48 hours to burn on to it (on most DVD writers, it already takes about 12-16 hours to fill up a dual layered disc..). And let's not forget the DVD writer itself is probably more expensive than the iPod Photo is.

Not important taking it no sysops use it The qwhisper thing there was nothing wrong with that and lastly i said i would fix this when i got back but no someon has to do ti first the first script i write for xchat while learning perl and someone goes and changes it for me CHEERS Haggis, the intention is if you're a sysop on another network, or a chanop/chanowner on another network. Because the bug will still be there if you're a chanop/sysop/chanowner on CUSA (there's really no way around it...). It supresses parsing unless you're on CUSA so users on other networks can't hide messages from you. And anyways, I fixed it in my version (including the annoying "if you say CUSA, it'll try and parse it" bug), and figured I'd help everyone else by posting my changes. Sheesh. You know just about as much Perl as I do, so don't get mad about it .

And here's my new-and-improved version: #!/usr/bin/perl # *********************************************** # # Xchat Font Stripper for Chats USA # # Coded by Haggis # # 3rd April '05 # # http://www.haggistech.co.uk # # Version 1.1-Zg # # *********************************************** # # Modified by Ziggy <[email protected]> ############################ # Bugs Fixed: # - Messages with "CUSA" in them but not at the beginning would not parse properly # - Missing tab in the "whisper" output stuff (so now the bar that lets you move the nicks over works) # - the script shouldn't run on servers that aren't CUSA # - added the #!/usr/bin/perl for distros that won't run the file without it # - formatted the code # - added a * before the launch info # - changed the script name to CUSA Font Stripper, and the 0. version to 1.1-Zg Xchat::register("CUSA Font Stripper","1.1-Zg"); Xchat::print("* ChatsUSA Font Stripper Loaded\n"); Xchat::print("* http://www.haggistech.co.uk\n"); IRC::add_message_handler("PRIVMSG", "say"); sub say { my ( $Nick ) = Xchat::get_info ( 'nick' ); my ( $Server ) = Xchat::get_info ( 'server' ); my $line = shift; # Verify they're on ChatsUSA (really, not that important, # but could prevent possible "hidden messages" on other networks, # which may or may not be a breach of security [i.e. if you're a # sysop, it probably would be bad if two skiddies were fighting # in a hidden CUSA font code thing and you didn't know it]) # Also increases script efficiency by 0.0000059%. -Zg if($Server =~ m/^CUSA.Server/) { # remember, the "whole line" is returned here. need to parse it some so # messages can't be hidden by throwing "CUSA" in there somewhere. # parse this ahead of time. my $namehost, $prvmsg, $to, $font, $msg, $msg2, $font2; ($namehost, $prvmsg, $to, $font, $msg) = split(/ /, $line, 5); if($font =~ m/^:CUSA/) { ($name, $host) = split(/!/, $namehost); ($font2, $msg2) = split(/:/,$msg,2); $name =~ s/://; $msg =~ s/://; if($to =~ $Nick) { IRC::command("/query $name"); #make a tab Xchat::print("<$name\cC>\t$msg2", $name, $serv); return Xchat::EAT_XCHAT; }else{ Xchat::emit_print("Private Message to Dialog", $name, $msg2); return Xchat::EAT_XCHAT; } } return Xchat::EAT_NONE; } }

Ah, so they are wrong. 2GB = 2,147,483,648 bytes 2GB = 2,097,152 kilobytes 2GB = 2,048 megabytes (worked out in case anyone doesn't know binary/byte computation) 2052 is still really, really close. I'm not complaining.

Nope, not yet. Working on it though (haven't gotten around to opening up nautilus...).

Yay! Don't forget #!/usr/bin/perl at the top, just in case your distro sucks and can't tell that's Perl.

Gmail does have POP3 . And my Gmail went up to 2052 MB, which is 2GB. So yes, it's applied. The "Cool Thing" about Gmail is the way it does everything totally differently from every other email provider. And the fact that the ads don't suck. They're the only ads that I ever think about clicking (and sometimes I do).

not with ignitionServices (yet). But it would work on most other services if any of them worked on Windows and the Windows build was configured for standard IRCD and not Unreal.... You can't re-q yourself as a normal user. Protected opers should be able to set whatever level is set in ircx.conf (Q/O/V/NORM) on themselves at any time, and that's what the bug is. It is fixed in the latest CVS version (CVS = concurrent versions system, where we keep the latest sourcecode). As for you seeing my sourcecode, it's open source. I don't really care who modifies ignitionServer or releases forks of it so long as it complies with the GNU GPL (if you have not read this, you should not touch the source until you do read the license) And morph3us, the negative comments are usually coming from two or three parties: - IRCXpro fans (IRCXpro is also written in Visual Basic 6.0, but it uses forms, and unless their "members only" update fixed something, sucks a lot of resources) - People who don't like me personally. Usually people who are mad that I dropped MSN support and rewrote the server to not use forms. - People who have used ignitionServer 0.1.2/iS-X9Chat -- 0.1.2 sucked. And the server X9Chat used from December 2003 to March 2004 (roughly) is a bastardized version of a prerelease of 0.1.3 (which was actually released as 0.2.1) and by nature sucked. X9Chat's newest server (up until they closed E9N when Michio gave up) was based on parts of pureIRCd and ignitionServer 0.3.3, so it's a major improvement, but still sucked, because ignitionServer is based on pureIRCd, except we fixed most of their bugs/problems and rewrote most of their code. Michio didn't get time to totally rewrite the code we rewrote (which is why he should have just taken iS and made his changes and done it in a GPL-compatible way)... but I digress. Most of the people talking trash about iS have an agenda. But also keep in mind it's in Beta (working on making it release canidate -- 0.3.8 and 0.3.9 should be the last betas after I release 0.3.7 soon), and I can't work on it until I fix VMware (apparently the version I have is incompatible with Linux 2.6.11, so I have to upgrade to 5.0-rc2... but that requires downloading a 50MB file on dialup). Also, in the future, if you have support questions on ignitionServer, you will get a much faster response if you ask in our forum. If you think you've found a bug, report it on our bug tracker (I'm going to add a link at the bottom of the home page for it). If it's invalid, I can mark it invalid. Every bit helps, even if it is wrong.

Oh. Try HydraIRC, it's better than anyone can throw together in VB in the timeframe you're proposing.

actually, this is fixed in CVS, but not released. I'll work harder on 0.3.7 then...

bug 1044082, fixed in latest version. If the problem still persists, make sure you have at least "NP" in your O: line (NP - netadmin, highprot).

Think about it like this. If Mozilla didn't think their security was "up-to-par", they wouldn't hand out $500 and a t-shirt to everyone who finds a vulnerability (and maybe a SFX coin, not sure). If Microsoft did this in their products, well, they'd be bankrupt. As for Opera, I would probably use it if it was a bit less screwed up. I mean, they pile more menu items under one menu than I've ever seen in my life. Perhaps if they had a "Opera Lite", it'd gain the attention that Firefox gets. As it is now, I cannot stand to use Opera (for the same reason I can't stand KDE or Konqueror's shell [but I love Konqueror's rendering engine]). And, for the record, this is "publically avaliable updates" -- when a patch is checked in, it's avaliable in the aviary nightly the next day, and someone who is REALLY paranoid can install it if they want. As for the "not as sexy" remark, well, it's debatable. It can look much cooler than IE, but it can also look crappier. The default theme is about as crappy as IE's theme. And most of the themes suck (about the only ones I use are Noia Lite/Extreme, GNOME-Fx, GNOME-Fx Blue, Novell Industrial, and the default theme).

I don't know what the OP meant originally, but eggdrop should work well as an automated bot that you can stick on your IRC server.

What he wants, apparently, is to link his MSN Chat Control-based webchat to his site's user profiles. Or, to create profiles. Or to create logins. One of those things. This is highly illegal (you agreed not to use the MSN Chat Control unless on Microsoft services when you agreed to the terms of use of MSN when you registered; Microsoft's info pages say you also bind yourself to those rules if you use the control at all), and quite difficult to do unless you're smart with PHP/Apache. And since you're asking for help, you apparently aren't. If it's not MSN, then you should know how to support user profiles (because then you would be the author, or you would know who the author is).

lie n. 1. A false statement deliberately presented as being true; a falsehood. 2. Something meant to deceive or give a wrong impression I am not deliberately presenting falsehoods as truth. I may not be right (this is yet to be determined), but I'm not doing it on purpose. Firefox can get attacked just as well as any browser. However, it is far more resistant to spyware/malware than IE6 is. There are many reasons why: - Firefox does not offer any way for code to install or run without prompting the user. If it did, it would be a bug. In fact, the installer code pops up the dialog no matter what (which is annoying if you're writing an extension, but deal with it). - Extensions are written in JavaScript. There are limits to the language. So don't expect an extension to ever be able to write a corrupted BIOS EEPROM file (some malware does this) or corrupt Winsock DSPs (some malware does this). - Plugins, the only things that can be binaries, can only be installed manually or through the PFS, which only lists well-known plugins that get registered through MoFo or AOL/Netscape. - Extensions are installed by the browser; they do not install themselves -- so arbitrary code cannot get executed. - Conversely, the browser uninstalls extensions. So if something did install, the browser could remove the extension quite easily. If for some reason it doesn't, it's a bug. Actually, if you hang around Bugzilla, you'd notice that most of the security bugs that got fixed in 1.0.1 got fixed within a day or two. They did not release a new version of Firefox publically to avoid confusion (if they released a new version that fixed just one vulnerability at a time, they'd be on Firefox 1.0.21 -- which would really confuse people). However, the security-minded can run an aviary nightly (which does not contain any modifications to Gecko, the rendering engine -- just mainly bugfixes that will make it to a new point release) if they are very concerned about Firefox's security. The main things shared between Mozilla and Firefox are: - the XPFE toolkit - the XPCOM toolkit - Gecko - NSPR/NSS The XUL toolkit, extensions/plugin framework, and several tens of thousands of lines of code are different. And now that Seamonkey is dead, Firefox is "the" browser. Mozilla is now just a reference platform. (NB: if you've ever wondered why Mozilla themes/extensions don't work at all in Firefox, it's because Firefox has different XUL bindings and a much different extension framework -- Mozilla doesn't use extension overlays; Firefox does) Okay, I stan-corrected. Last I heard, they said "this is the intended behavior". As I said before, in my opinion as a developer, Microsoft version numbers are more hype than truth. Especially with IE. IE4-IE6 are all basically the same on the inside, with improvements to the rendering, but nothing too major. Generally, the "major" portion of a version number changes when something seriously major gets changed. Microsoft did the right thing with Windows 2000/Windows XP. Windows 2000 is NT 5.0 and XP is NT 5.1. That accurately protrays the differences. Longhorn is NT 6.0, which also accurately protrays the differences. However, IE6 should really be IE 5.0 or IE 4.5, since IE6 is basically IE5 + P3P + CSS1 + some CSS2 + better JS/VBS (i.e. it supports document.getElementById) + better cookie handling. And IE5 is IE4 + less buggy + better COM+ support + better JS/VBS support + other minor enhancements. I personally cannot tell the difference between IE5 and IE4 rendering. My site looks the same in both browsers, and Slashdot looks the same to me, and just about every site I've ever tried looks/feels the same. I mention that I'm giving an opinion when I am. And anyways, the point of a forum is to communicate opinions. Can you imagine how boring a forum would be if every post was like "grass is usually green" or "the drummer of Def Leppard only has one arm"? I resent that; I bleed red. You're right. Users care about only a few things primarily: - which product is better - which one is updated more - how complicated the product is Apache is a far superior product than IIS. But people use IIS. The reason is that they may not possess the knowledge to modify a httpd.conf file or setup Apache. Or, they may have to fulfill a request from someone higher up in their organization and do not know how to do it with Apache, or Apache can't (for example, I know a guy who hates IIS but has to run it because his company needed something that was only avaliable for IIS/ASP). There's not much that Apache can't do nowadays (heck, with PHP, you can load COM+ controls [ActiveX controls] and manipulate them just like you can in ASP, and you can load .NET forms and manipulate them just like you can in ASP.NET -- requires Windows though), but it just doesn't suit some people. It's the reason why most ATMs run OS/2. OS/2 died in 1995 with the release of Windows 95. But before then, banks had already deployed OS/2, and most of the ATM software only runs on OS/2 (Diebold's software being the memorable exception -- then again, Diebold ATMs suffer from the Blaster worm....). Switching to Windows would require them to find another vendor, and since Windows is technically superior to OS/2, it would be a smart decision. But they won't until there is some need for them to (it's the "if it ain't broke, don't fix it" rule). MSIE7 is vaporware. Sure, details are being released, but I can't tell the accuracy of the claims. But as I said originally, IE7's standards support will suck. Just like in IE6. This article should confirm this. I also said that 32 bit PNG support is unlikely, but it seems that it is quite likely. Cheers to Microsoft. Now I wish they'd fix CSS2 or add support for the "needs finalization" CSS 2.1 (the W3C is mainly waiting on the company members to say "okay, ship it" -- Microsoft is one of the people holding it up). As for the claim that it's going to be a tabbed browser, I'm not going to say anything until I see it. I highly doubt it, since one of the "selling points" in Windows XP was that all of your MSIE windows would get grouped in the taskbar. Microsoft has done a complete 180 before, so it's anyone's guess. IE6 is not technically superior to Firefox. It may have some pros that make it better than Firefox in some respects. ActiveX, for example. Though ActiveX is far less powerful than XPCOM, it's more widely adopted. So you need IE to view ActiveX. Firefox can host ActiveX, but it's highly unlikely Mozilla will ship with it enabled (if there's a vulnerability in ActiveX, it becomes Mozilla's responsibility to fix it, and makes MS fanboys go "ha, so your browser is really not secure!"). The few things that IE has that Firefox doesn't (P3P being a major one) aren't really all that great (P3P information can be faked, spoofed, and so on, so it's not really all that good of an indicator of the site's privacy policy). And there is a P3P plugin for Firefox, if you want it. IE7 will make the competition somewhat closer, since it might add tabbed browsing, but feature-for-feature and technical aspect-for-technical aspect, Firefox will weigh out better. That is, of course, assuming that the Gecko development team doesn't revolt after the news that they killed Seamonkey (they won't, but maybe a member or two will leave to make a Seamonkey fork). And the same amount or greater are reported in IE (you can only count holes -- bugs are not reported in IE, and I'm sure that if there was some sort of bug tracker for IE, there'd be thousands and thousands of open bugs). Sure, Firefox has bugs. They fix them. They make it in a new release. IE has bugs too, but the ones that really piss me off (only 24 bit PNGs [alpha channel ignored], no position: fixed, background-attachment: scroll only on body) have persisted since IE4 or IE5. That's 5 years. Too long to wait for patches. I'm aware of them. Most of them were fixed in Gecko 1.8. If you're up to it, download a trunk Firefox nightly (using latest Gecko 1.8) and see if you can reproduce it. If you can, search Bugzilla and confirm bugs or file new ones. The more people who try and break Firefox, the better Firefox will be. Also, this article implies that the WMP fix is cosmetic; it implies that you can still install the malware that is exploiting this bug.

As asa said on SpreadFirefox, the automatic update will be staggered to prevent a denial of service. They released Firefox 1.0.1 before they completed their server upgrade, and it would probably bring down their web server if 27 million people were downloading the update at the same time. The staggering is happening as we speak. en-US, en-CA, and a few other locales have gotten the update enabled. en-UK has NOT had the update turned on yet, so you won't get a notice until they enable it (there are apparently a lot of en-UK people out there). It's up to individual extension authors to make sure their extensions are compatible with new releases. 1.0.1 shouldn't have broken any extensions, and I'm not entirely sure why extensions don't just say they're compatible with 1.0 to 1.0.99 or something so they work when new revisions are out. Firefox Update is still buggy, yes, but if you look on Bugzilla, you can see that too. They fixed some of the showstopping bugs in 1.0.1. Either way, after upgrading to 1.0.1, you should be able to Options > Advanced > Update > Check Now and have your extensions upgraded if there are any. Known bug. The 1.0.1 installer crew was so eager to get the patch out that they forgot to change the version number checking (the code that automatically removes 0.1 to 0.8 and 0.9.x). That's why the release notes say "uninstall Firefox 1.0 first". The 1.0.1 automatic update installer has the same bug, so it's since been pulled (they're working on fixing it and should have it fixed in a couple days, if not already). It's not as simple as you think. It might seem simple, but there is a lot of code involved in updating 27 million installations while keeping in mind that: - Your server is on a 100Mbps line and you cannot handle 27 million people downloading an executable at the same time. - Some people might not have permission to install a Firefox upgrade (anyone who has their system secured properly shouldn't have permission to write to C:\Program Files and would need to have an administrator upgrade Firefox) - There are hundreds of different locales out there. Someone who speaks es-MX (Spanish [Mexico]) will probably not want to upgrade Firefox to find out that it's now in en-US (English [uS]). Especially if they don't know a word of English. - Some of the independent localization people haven't upgraded their translation yet. - There's a timeframe you have to release the update in because of a bug in the code that sees what date it is (it only works reliably at the beginning of the month; after the 16th or so it stops checking for updates entirely -- known bug, fixed in 1.0.1). It was an Angloid mistake, if anyone cares. For some reason, in Europe, their week starts on Monday. We start our week on Sunday. The code was really easy to fix, but that doesn't change the fact there was a bug in the first place. - There are an infinite number of Firefox builds. I'd say hundreds, but us Gentoo users usually roll our own (and why not, it's as easy as "emerge mozilla-firefox"). And then there are Moox's builds, the Debian builds, SVG-enabled builds, builds with talkback, builds without talkback, Visual Studio 7.1 builds, Visual Studio 6.0 builds, Cygwin builds, and so on. They can't push the same file to every Firefox installation, because there are quite a few people who are using a build that's configured differently than the official build. It's your choice, yes. Some people also choose to jump off bridges, shoot themselves in the head, and steal cars. Just because other people do it doesn't mean I'm going to. But whatever. Cleric xtx: That's exactly why I will not install SP2. Quite a few of my programs didn't work on SP2, and very few of them had updates to fix it for SP2. Not to mention that my WLAN didn't work. SP2 should have been spread out over many different products instead of just one. MDAC was updated to 3.0 in SP2. They should make that a seperate product release instead of SP2-only.