Chanfix - 3 years later

[Hardy]

It has been close to 3 years since the idea of chanfix was proposed to global admins and a vote was called 7. April 2001 to link in a channelfix services on EFnet by William Rockwood ( wjr@irc ).

How do you feel about chanfix? Is it the success some people hoped it would be or has it been devastating for the "free" network EFnet was?

Here is some background information based on the original vote

BACKGROUND:

This proposed "channelfix" solution presents a quick fix to the oppless
channel problem with a "services-like" server which does, on a constant
basis, what the efnext "snapshot" mechanism does--cull a list of
chanops, index it and build averages over periods of time. Rather than
require server operators to be concerned with it, however, channelfix
operates on the client layer with a "fixerbot" client which it uses to
restore ops to channels which have become oppless. There are further
potential uses for the channelfix server which are outside the scope
of this document but include "repairing" TS0 channels, DCC functionality
so admins and selected operators could "log in" to the service to watch
chanfix's activities in realtime.


FUNCTIONAL OVERVIEW:

The channelfix server operates as a "services-like" server in that it
links to the network but does not carry clients, or even have the
ability to carry clients. It merely grabs the 8-10meg burst every
10-30 minutes, distills it to useful information and stores it in
a database to be held for 3-10 days as a historical datagram of
information which it will then self-reference when it detects that
a channel has lost ops. Once fully functional, channelfix will
join its "chanfix" client to the affected channel, compare the
members of the channel to its stored list of people who have been
opped in that channel and op the 5-most-frequent nicks (by userhost)
and leave the channel, leaving it once again in a state of having
ops.

So, dont be afraid, give us your innermost feelings

[Pills]

Servers are going down a lot less, and MANY fewer are being lost to packets. That right there is justification enough.

[deww]

First off, I'm surprised it's already been *that* long! It only seems like it was introduced recently. I've seen several channels that were "saved" by ChanFix. Chanfix seems to have made IRCing, at least on EFNet, more enjoyable for me as I do not have to worry too much about having a channel become totally opless. Like Pills mentioned, it's most likely due to it that servers are going down a lot less, and that's a plus. Channel takeover attempts appear to happen a lot less, at least from regular user's perspective. You can't say, however, people stop trying. From that perspective, I think it's successful.

The issue I've with it is a perceptual issue that some newcomers to EFNet have now. Now that it's around, there's a perception that it's a cureall for all channel issues. Everyone thinks that they are qualified for ChanFix to rescue their opless channel, despite being told many times that their channel or client does not meet the requirements for ChanFix to score them. I think it has, in effect, created a mindset in which some people think that the network is responsible for keeping the channel for them. They've grown reliant on it and basically whine when they can't get their ops back. This is a new breed of users, almost like DALNet users who panic when their precious services is down.

[bobjuh]

I'm not mutch of a efnet user i idle just on some channels but i thin chanfix is really a good thing. They also should have something like that on IRCnet

[HM2K]

Although it HAS actually reduced packets, some think it has taken the fun out of EFnet, as EFnet is no longer the place it used to be. Though it has developed into something else. I can't work out whether its a good thing, or a bad thing. To me, EFnet was fine without it, but then again i'm not a big fan of change.

PS. 3 Years, damn it, i remembers when it came, I was on holiday, I came back and there it was!

[prefect]

Although it HAS actually reduced packets, some think it has taken the fun out of EFnet, as EFnet is no longer the place it used to be. Though it has developed into something else. I can't work out whether its a good thing, or a bad thing. To me, EFnet was fine without it, but then again i'm not a big fan of change.
PS. 3 Years, damn it, i remembers when it came, I was on holiday, I came back and there it was!

fun? what kind of person are you?

[Hardy]

Although it HAS actually reduced packets, some think it has taken the fun out of EFnet, as EFnet is no longer the place it used to be. Though it has developed into something else. I can't work out whether its a good thing, or a bad thing. To me, EFnet was fine without it, but then again i'm not a big fan of change.
PS. 3 Years, damn it, i remembers when it came, I was on holiday, I came back and there it was!

fun? what kind of person are you?

I kind of agree with HM2K.

I hadnt operd for long when chanfix was introduced and even tho i think its the best thing that has happend to the network in modern time, it took some of the soul efnet had, for beeing a "free" network where you dont own anything. chanfix creates some sort of channel owners, no mather what people say. Only diffrence is that the owner list is sort of dynamic.

I also miss that you had to have some clue to keep operator status in a channel soit didnt become opless, and then the excitement of trying to ride in op status again on opless channels ( go cmu.edu and stanford.edu! ).

Then again, i dont miss seeing my clients packeted out because they were channel ops in big channels ( like #norge, which was a major takeover/packet target ).

[biggy]

3 cheers for chanfix.
While it did punch a hole in the stigma of serviceless EFnet, on the whole it's a useful tool with little to no user interaction, therefor taking away that bias point of oper/client use/abuse.

[Pills]

I kind of agree with HM2K.

I hadnt operd for long when chanfix was introduced and even tho i think its the best thing that has happend to the network in modern time, it took some of the soul efnet had, for beeing a "free" network where you dont own anything. chanfix creates some sort of channel owners, no mather what people say. Only diffrence is that the owner list is sort of dynamic.

See, I'm the opposite. For those that are reading this that don't know, I've held my umich O:line for about 10.5 years. At the point JUPES (original name of CHANFIX) was introduced, we had just suffered the worst attack in the history of EFnet. Most of us thought that that attack was inevitible, and the kiddies were winning. We had no tool to fight abuse effectively.

Then came chanfix with TS5, and suddenly, we had control again (yes, I was just reading the old forum for a while). Takeovers became pretty much pointless; channels couldn't be held anymore. At that point, the oper/admin community cared less about "free" and more about actually having a usable network.

[deww]

Having an useable network is a lot more attractive than one that "lost it's free (as in anarchy) charm." All that's gone is that channels are now harder/pointless to take over. It's still possible. That's just one aspect of it. There are so many people who prefer to have a place that they can chat and do other things *cough*fileswapping*cough* without having to see netsplits left and right due to people trying to "own" someone else's channel. "EFNet splits so much" isn't a phrase commonly seen anymore. If somebody was out to get you, they still can, no matter how much "protection" is available. I remember that day when JUPES was introduced and at about the same time, I had just been sitting in a channel that was recently taken over. The scoring system favored the ops who had taken over. Oh well, it's only a channel and it's only IRC. I favor being able to chat peacefully than to watch splits all day.

[Hardy]

I`m not saying that i didnt want chanfix to be added to the network, just that it took some of the old efnet soul away.

I`m happy its here aswell because it saved servers and reduced attacks considerably. But i consider any major changes in a network as removing one part of the idea behind it and adding another. When it comes to chanfix its more positive then negative to say..

[dawg]

Although it HAS actually reduced packets, some think it has taken the fun out of EFnet, as EFnet is no longer the place it used to be. Though it has developed into something else. I can't work out whether its a good thing, or a bad thing. To me, EFnet was fine without it, but then again i'm not a big fan of change.
PS. 3 Years, damn it, i remembers when it came, I was on holiday, I came back and there it was!

fun? what kind of person are you?

04:20 --- Topic for #[channelname]: What happend to the fun on EFnet ? | chanfix broke it

Well, i think its great with chanfix, IMHO.

[lucy]

it must still be some fun to alot of people cause we still have alot of people on efnet (even after foonet got raided and all the bots that are missing!).
if we lost people because of chanfix, i dont know who. it just took some getting used to and most people don't like change. i've seen people who didn't like the idea of chanfix at all, be happy for it, when they lost their channel.

[HM2K]

I don't think we have lost any users due to chanfix, this is not what i was originally saying, as I said EFnet has developed, but it is and never will be how it used to be back in the day. I liked it back then "the good old days". I am sure more people can remember the fun we had. Then again, I have grown up with EFnet, from when I was 13-14, it just grows with you.

I think most people just accept and move on... Which is why not that many people left due to it. In a similar way to how most people use a peice of software, and upgrade/update regardless to the changes.

EFnet is still unique and always will be, it offers something that other networks will only be second to, and I think almost everyone has to agree to that.

Enjoy

[Beige]

Whether we like Chanfix or not, the reasons why it "had" to be brought in are relatively clear.

People used to packet servers in an attempt to split them off the network, and then to use the split servers to regain ops on opless channels.

It was inevitable that the network's codebase had to be upgraded to eliminate this impetus for packeting servers. With the annual increases in easily available DDoS bandwidth, the network would've essentially fallen apart.

As new TS ( = timestamp, used for determining who is the older client/channel in merging netsplit rejoins) code was introduced to make split riding less fruitful, Chanfix offered an alternative solution for communities to maintain a viable presence on the network. Had there been no Chanfix, we would've ended up with a network of opless communities with little hope of regaining control. Hence, Chanfix was a necessity, just like the more stringent TS handling was a necessity.

Sure, the network is different. I guess a pretty strong parallel can be drawn between the growth and progression of EFnet and the history of motoring. Initially, when cars were rare, and not that many people were driving, regulation wasn't such a big deal. Sure, there were accidents, but there wasn't really a need for stringent traffic laws and speed limits. But nowadays, with millions of vehicles on the roads every day, a lack of regulation would quickly undermine the viability of the road network.

In a similar manner, as the network's user count has continued to grow and new threats have emerged, there has been little choice but to develop the network's infrastructure to prevent a complete breakdown.

I can relate well to the feeling that the network is less fun nowadays. However, to tell the truth, whenever I engage in the "The network is boring nowadays!" type of banter, I mainly do it in an attempt to impress the newbies with my stories of the "good old days". At the end of the day I'm still certainly very glad Chanfix is out there 'just in case'