Comments for BitchX
Re: New version
>
> %
> % We don't have a
> % need to sanitize and hide things from
> % people.
>
>
> There would have been no need to hide
> only the tcl behind a binary to keep
> from "too many implementations" of it in
> the *first place* if that were (anywhere
> close to being) true. When you explain
> this w/o using an out such as "the
> license doesnt require us to explain",
> maybe you might have some credibility.
> Or are you just going to redirect people
> to the forums, only to discredit what is
> true?
>
seth,
You've proven time and again that you're only interest in
this project is to discredit anyone associated with it.
People do not have to justify or supply you or anyone else
for reasons they might have in doing something such as
pana had done with tcl.c. You're justification for bitching
about this is simply because you can and nothing else.
You've supplied the community with no credible truth to
anything you've stated and you've proven beyond a doubt
that you're intent is only to discredit and slander persons
that in the past have been involved with the project.
My explanations for what has transpired in the past are to
the best of my ability to explain. pana has every right like
any other software author to hide pieces of their code
behind the license they are using if it allows them to do so
simply because they can or for whatever reason they pull
out of their ass.
The code is what it is. It was released by pana to a
handful of people over the years to help support various
platforms they wanted tcl support ported. The goal was
accomplished and it was never as big of a deal as you've
made it out to be with these petty, childish, and
inaccurate rants you have posted here.
When you're able to stop making slanderous comments
and actually show valid proof of what you're saying,
someone will give a rats ass. As I've stated and others
have in the past; the original tcl.c, which has been
modified over the years, was so presented at the time to
persons developing eggdrop at the time and at no point did
they ever see any similarity between what pana had put
together and what they were using. The only people that
had a right to bitch or complain never said a word and that
to me makes you suspect as only being a shit disturbing
little prick that wants to cause a scene for his own
exposure since you have no signature on radar anywhere
else in your pathetic life.
You can continue writing these pathetic comments,
change gears and come after me or anyone else you like.
The burden of proof is on your shoulders and whether
anyone chooses to respond to your mediocre,
hypothetical, and outright slanderous accusations is up to
them. I've decided to let you stew from time to time and
respond at a later date just because.. I can. I've seen
that any direct response to you is always followed up by
these ignorant accusations that we're hiding something or
that we have to come up with proof to back up what we're
saying and have been for years. Wrong. In this case the
license clearly gives pana and anyone else using the same
type of license the right to not disclose portions of the
code which they author. He went the extra step, included
others that were outsiders to review what he had wrote.
They never came at him and they never released the code
out of respect for pana. Others directly involved in the
project also demonstrated the same loyalty and respect for
pana over the years and never once released that piece of
code except to persons who were part of the project in
some fashion.
Is your bitterness driven from the fact that you some how
were attempting to be involved with the project and were
rejected due to your fragile personality problems? It
seems to me that you spent a lot of time flaming pana
and others (myself included) all for some sort of attention
you could not gain any other way? You should seriously
seek some form of medical intervention for these issues
and step away from your computer for a long time to
come. You're unstable and you cry over things that only
matter to people that have no life at all or are just trying
to shine a spotlight on them by attempting to create
drama where there was none. You, by example, have
shown the community exactly the type of person you are
with these repeated false accusations and attempts to
discredit persons who are only doing the best they could to
supply the public with information and access to a product
of interest. This makes you the boy the cried wolf one too
many times.
Good day
Rob Andrews
Re: New version
>
> We don't have a
> need to sanitize and hide things from
> people.
There would have been no need to hide only the tcl behind a binary to keep from "too many implementations" of it in the *first place* if that were (anywhere close to being) true. When you explain this w/o using an out such as "the license doesnt require us to explain", maybe you might have some credibility. Or are you just going to redirect people to the forums, only to discredit what is true?
Re: New version
> Where sin has nothing more than
> arrogance, is here. Over there, he has
> friends to defend him. The pressure that
> made this measure necessary was the same
> that made the source availible(albeit
> sanitized and purposely outdated).
>
Again, I think you need to grow up and get over this already. We don't have a need to sanitize and hide things from people.
Re: BitchX is not distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL!!!
It's amazing that you would actually attempt to fire this argument up again. seth, you have no basis in fact for anything you say. You accuse those of us involved with the cilent of a great many things yet not once over the years has anything malicious resulted of tcl.c and those using it as part of the client. This is a fact.
The reason that the client was so widely used is even though tcl.c was kept from the public, which again was within Colton's right to do so under the terms of the BSD license, is because unlike a number of people out there, he never one time allowed nor himself misused this piece of withheld code to perform any sort of malicious behaviour with the cilent which could or did result in damage, invasion, or any other illegal activity.
You have ranted about this and attempted to make yourself sound as if you are the only source that can be right. I am stating thing based purely in fact and facts that I didn't fabricate or invent but that were there predating my taking up the lead for this project from the PR standpoint.
Your accusations are without any substance and your arrogance is clear even though you seem to accuse me of a number of things including being arrogant which couldn't be further from the truth considering I've stated nothing but the truth.
All of this said, you are simply whining like a little bitch because someone would not share something with you that you wanted and have been repeatedly denied. With the close of the 1.x dist you no longer have any grounds to complain or whine about this issue nor do you have any rights to continue to accuse people of things which you have never had any basis in fact for in the first place. good day and good bye..
Re: Follow your own advice first.
>
> What gives you the right to come along
> and accuse the channel ops or anyone
> else involved with this project of
> anything underhanded?
Only the tcl.c, nothing else.
> For years the only problems that have
> ever resulted of this client are people
> like you who come along and are
> irritated, turning into script kiddies,
> and pulling off stupid DDoS attacks in
> order to cause troubles on distro sites
> and insert hacked code into the client
> on fake distro sites.
>
> Not one time has BitchX ever had a
> release where intentional backdoors or
> hacks in the client were inserted for
> intent and use to abuse or cause issues
> with persons from a remote standpoint.
>
> While the project has come to a slowdown
> in development because of a changing of
> the guard, it does not mean that the
> standards of the clients release policy
> have changed. For the last 3 years I
> have managed to handle the distribution
> side of the cilent on the FTP sites and
> more recently the faq, scripts, bugs,
> forums and other resources which are now
> available for those involved in the
> continuing project.
>
> You've continued to spew utter nonsense
> for some time thinking that you are the
> only one that is right. The BSD License
> was adopted for this project for
> legitimate reasons by Colton and its not
> up to you or anyone else to question him
> or his code. No one that develops for
> Eggdrop has one time bitched about
> tcl.c. The debate ended a dark age ago
> and you continue to spread your opinion
> as if its a fact when you haven't once
> bothered to investigate what it is
> you're speaking about and have any
> conclusive evidence to back.
I await the facts, not a hollow defense, only on the tcl.o/tcl.c code - not the rest of the client.
> Since tcl.c has been publically release
> with the close of the 1.x BitchX project
> this debate is long since closed.
> However you are still not nor have you
> ever been in the right and you owe not
> just the people you've insulted here,
> but the community in general, an apology
> for spreading ignorance when you should
> have just RTFM.
No apology is needed or will ever arrive while the issue is this way.
Re: New version
> Official announcements about the client
> are "Officially" released on
> www.bitchx.org and www.cyberpunkz.org
>
> This has been a fact for over two years.
> Freshmeat hasn't been an active
> announce or release site for the project
> in several years because of the foolish
> dialogs that have taken place here over
> the dispute of the BSD License and
> tcl.c.
>
>
Where sin has nothing more than arrogance, is here. Over there, he has friends to defend him. The pressure that made this measure necessary was the same that made the source availible(albeit sanitized and purposely outdated).
Re: BitchX is not distributed under the terms of the GNU GPL!!!
>
> % from GNU GPL:
>
>
> What part of BSD License isn't clear for
> those of you literate enough to read?
>
Guess you put yourself with Ewing on this one. In the losing corner.
> again this is incorrect and anyone that
> bothered to ask the right question would
> know that tcl.c never has been derived
> from eggdrop. It's amazing how you spew
> ignorance in the face of lacking fact to
> support this assumption. As you know
> hopefully: Assumption is the mother of
> all stupidity.
>
>
>
> This is said over and over again making
> it appear that the two of you have no
> clue as to the completely foolish
> position you've put yourselves in.
Proving yourself once again, that you provide no fact whatsoever.
> This is the most pathetic debate ever.
> It had nothing to do with him being a
> snob or having a piss attitude about it.
> It had everything to do with Colton
> taking some pride in something he wrote
> for a client that he worked hard on for
> a number of years. Ungrateful
> individuals like you come along, spew
> utter lies and talk about things you
> have no first hand knowledge of, and it
> gets left to those of us that know and
> have been around this project since
> before it's inception when bitchx was
> still just an IRC script to load under
> ircII to come along and educate you in a
> way that you deserve. Public humilation
> is a wonderful thing.
Amazing how you can say a lot and yet say nothing about the issue. You bring no facts to the table about tcl.c, and only release a sanitized, and probably old module of tcl.c. With dates in 1996 of the last known tcl module source, it is highly unlikely that this is the same version that was in binary modules- and more of arrogance about "too many implementations".
Re: What is libtinfo.so.5 ?
> Does anybody know where I can get
> libtinfo.so.5? I got a dependency error
> message for this when I tried to install
> this from an rpm (BitchX's home page is
> down for hardware upgrades and the link
> here doesn't work). I'm running RH9.
> Is this not going to be a problem once
> I can get the source and compile rather
> than use an rpm? Does anybody know
> somewhere else I can get the source?
I've never seen this issue related to BitchX honestly. if you happen to stumble back across this message, did you happen to get any resolution on this and if so was it anything directly related to the client? I just don't recall ever seeing this depend for BitchX.
Re: funny bug in bitchx
> put two urls in your quit/part message
> and every bitchx user will think you
> dropped cuz of a netsplit :-)
>
>
> %<TomK32> <-- TomK33 has quit
> (www.tomk32.de diary.tomk32.de)
> %<sh0> ì NetSplit:
> diary.tomk32.de split from www.tomk32.de
> [12:02]
> %<sh0> ì BitchX: Press ^F
> to see who left ^E to change to
> [diary.tomk32.de]
>
>
This isn't a bug in BitchX. This was present in a number of IRC clients including mIRC, pirch, xchat, irssi, epic, ircII, scrollz, and a number of others to name a few. Learn the difference between a bug and a common problem that was present in a large number of irc clients for some time.
DCC_MAX_AUTOGET_SIZE
Unfortunately the DCC_MAX_AUTOGET_SIZE has some limits and cannot be set very high. I'm not sure if this is was intended to be so. --Ann (www.quotesdb.info)