Topic: After a week banning. let's pick up where I left off.

[Hexx]

Bonk, forget trying to explain it. Just post the rule and declare it's our way or the highway. Otherwise you'll be explaining till you're blue in the face because some just won't accept it no matter how logical it is. Those players will no longer be players. Good riddens.

Well, THAT'S what this RAPIDLY shrinking community needs...fewer players...

While I'm in favor of NOT running a firewall, your approach to the situation, as usual, is a bit OTT.

Don't ya think this horse is dead already? 

After only 2 pages?

Man we took shuttles to what... 7? 8? 16?

Yer getting old there Kruegy..

[FPF-Tobin Dax]

Bonk, forget trying to explain it. Just post the rule and declare it's our way or the highway. Otherwise you'll be explaining till you're blue in the face because some just won't accept it no matter how logical it is. Those players will no longer be players. Good riddens.

Well, THAT'S what this RAPIDLY shrinking community needs...fewer players...

While I'm in favor of NOT running a firewall, your approach to the situation, as usual, is a bit OTT.

Don't ya think this horse is dead already? 

After only 2 pages?

Man we took shuttles to what... 7? 8? 16?

Yer getting old there Kruegy..

It's not age, it's maturity. What Kreug said. 

[Hexx]

Bonk, forget trying to explain it. Just post the rule and declare it's our way or the highway. Otherwise you'll be explaining till you're blue in the face because some just won't accept it no matter how logical it is. Those players will no longer be players. Good riddens.

Well, THAT'S what this RAPIDLY shrinking community needs...fewer players...

While I'm in favor of NOT running a firewall, your approach to the situation, as usual, is a bit OTT.

Don't ya think this horse is dead already? 

After only 2 pages?

Man we took shuttles to what... 7? 8? 16?

Yer getting old there Kruegy..

It's not age, it's maturity. What Kreug said. 

<sigh>

We haven't had any sort of flame thing going on in a long time.
At this rate I'll NEVER end up getting one of those cool green "warned" things attached to my profile.
What happens if some hot chick drops by, sees my incredibly sexy posting style, but decides since I obviously haven't been
"warned" I'm not enough of a badass for her?
It could be over before it's begun!!!

I mean maybe *try* thinking about someone other than yourself ?

 Yer wish is my command, HexX

[Riskyllama]

I mean maybe *try* thinking about someone other than yourself ?

Yer wish is my command, HexX

Being new, do they come in other colors? Maybe teal for Camboro cartel?

[Lepton]

Hate to open a can of worms here as I do not know the answer to this question, but as far as I am concerned if a dyna server admin is running their dynaverse on what amounts a server that is supported by the community, a server admin should not be able to promulgate a rule that denies access to that server, particularly in this case this firewall thing.  Are most of these dynaverse campaigns run on the servers that are maintained by the Organization?  I know that far more people benefit from these "public servers" than actually contribute to their maintenance and upkeep, etc., but if this community is not a pay-to-play system, then there has to be some consideration paid to the community at-large.  Quite frankly if you have your own equipment and you want to make lunatic connection rules even based on ping, that is your perogative.

However, I chaffe at the intimation that somehow if someone puts together a dynaverse campaign, he or she can somehow set policy for the entire community as regards their internet security settings.  As I have said, I think first we are trying to be an open community.  Insisting on a set of conditions to even participate in a dynaverse campaign, I think, is a bit restrictive and counterproductive.  Further, if these campaigns are run via these "public" services provided by the Organization, I hardly see how someone who creates a campaign, i.e. the content of a server, should be able to set policy for access to these "public" services.  And that is a very qualified "public" I am using.  I believe we are not using servers fully maintained and funded by the community.  I am really trying not to step on any toes here, so I will say no more in this particular line of arguement. 

What I will simply say is that I do indeed play with no software firewalls as I have little choice in the matter if I even wish to connect to the dyna.  I don't think that anyone is particularly jeopardizing their system by dropping the software firewalls for a time, but I think it is wholly inappropriate to insist that they must.

Further while I have no doubt that software firewalls can play a role in mission instability, it would seem to me that mission instability was here long before I even knew what a software firewall was, before I even had one on my system, before this topic even came up.   Like I said, tempest in a teapot.

[Dizzy]

Lol, never thought you'd have the balls to give me a warning Frey. Well, Steven called and looks like we will get a paintball showdown at his place. Be there in June. May the man with the biggest balls win.

[Bonk]

Hate to open a can of worms here as I do not know the answer to this question, but as far as I am concerned if a dyna server admin is running their dynaverse on what amounts a server that is supported by the community, a server admin should not be able to promulgate a rule that denies access to that server, particularly in this case this firewall thing.  Are most of these dynaverse campaigns run on the servers that are maintained by the Organization?  I know that far more people benefit from these "public servers" than actually contribute to their maintenance and upkeep, etc., but if this community is not a pay-to-play system, then there has to be some consideration paid to the community at-large.  Quite frankly if you have your own equipment and you want to make lunatic connection rules even based on ping, that is your perogative.

However, I chaffe at the intimation that somehow if someone puts together a dynaverse campaign, he or she can somehow set policy for the entire community as regards their internet security settings.  As I have said, I think first we are trying to be an open community.  Insisting on a set of conditions to even participate in a dynaverse campaign, I think, is a bit restrictive and counterproductive.  Further, if these campaigns are run via these "public" services provided by the Organization, I hardly see how someone who creates a campaign, i.e. the content of a server, should be able to set policy for access to these "public" services.  And that is a very qualified "public" I am using.  I believe we are not using servers fully maintained and funded by the community.  I am really trying not to step on any toes here, so I will say no more in this particular line of arguement. 

Um, what dynaverse servers are you talking about? Did you read my posts above?

The community run servers The Forge (DGA) and Universe At War (CUGS) administrated by yours truly, would not be what they are and might not even run at all if not for me. I think I have a pretty significant say in how they are used. That said, I'll repeat what I said above: Anyone is welcome to play on The Forge or Universe At War regardless of what nasty crap they may be running on their PC, however, I reserve the right to only accept bug reports and feedback from those not running Software Firewalls and Antivirus (particularly Norton) while playing. Further I politely request that if you insist on using such crap stay well away from me on the map. When it comes to MySQL test servers I insist on no software firewalls for obvious reasons.

Further while I have no doubt that software firewalls can play a role in mission instability, it would seem to me that mission instability was here long before I even knew what a software firewall was, before I even had one on my system, before this topic even came up.   Like I said, tempest in a teapot.

I have been playing SFC since the start. Trust me, mission instability rose dramatically with the advent of software firewalls and the frenzied security paranoia we see today. Yes there were always connection issues, but mission stability has clearly suffered with the increasing popularity of software firewalls. Canada West Rule #9 was drafted to handle the relatively infrequent connection issues of the past. I have seen the effects of software firewalls on missions that used to work fine for us, yet in recent servers have been rejected due to "bug" reports. The effect is significant and real.

[Skaren]

OH OH, can I get the green warning too!

It will help me look like a real bad ass, for the upcoming Pirate Campaign,..

Lord knowns I will need all the help I can get.     



I never run a firewall, I am a network Admin, they cause more issues than they are worth.  The only time I would recommend one is if you do any online banking.  Noticed I snail mailed my donation check to Dyna,...  so obviously I don't think that is smart either.



I agree shouldn't the warning not be green, but like red or yellow alert or something     Isn't this a SFC site,  who is the idiot who made it green,....    There,.. after that insult maybe Frey will give me the warning  too    ))))))))))

PS I have heard about these flame fests and personally am looking forward to the next one !

PSS  Also it is great to read all the opinions on all the various topics on this form, it is a fine example of Democracy at work.

PSSS  after all the reading, I throw my weight in with Bonks opinion, he speaks with the most sense, of all of you.

[Dizzy]

Look, folks, here goes Bonk again eplaining software firewalls and how they are bad. He is turning blue in the face. What we are simply going to have to do is just ask you to please not use them. That's it. I mean, if you do and cause disconnects and CTD's, then that's on you and you're making the game a bad experience for everyone around you.

I think it's gonna come down to staying off the front lines completely if you just cant stand to turn off your software firewall because they are not compatible with how OP sets up mission hosts. I honestly wouldnt mind if players logged into the server with their firewalls on as long as they don't engage in PvP and arnt pissing off their wingmen/women with disconnects/CTD's and crap.

So there. I said it. Have your cake and eat it too. Can we move on now?

[Bartok]

That leaves DH's servers, Scipio's and Bartok's servers left to join the no software firewall club. Muhahahaha! For the players, resistance is futile. You will lower your shields and be assimilated into the collective or destroyed!

Greetings All -

Ok - I hadn't ducked into this thread in a while and just spent a half hour reading all the opines.   My first reaction was not to weigh in at all, and let this die as the solutions I believe are obvious to all.  Though, sometimes I think I need to get my post #'s up 

I'm honored to be able to put up a server every once in a while (homage to RDSL in the works).  While I have a great respect for some of the complex campaigns put together by others, I typically only run "fun" servers.  I call them these partly because I lack the technical ability to take it too far not using SQL as my backend so I can't do nifty things like change your ship or give you prestige points when u should've received them.  Not to mention all the other nifty possibilities of connecting via http: to make webmaps and shipyards available ( Thank you Bonk )   In time perhaps....

That being said - I can't really join a no firewalls club as I lack the means to follow through.  If I did have the means (and the time) I probably wouldn't bother as I feel as has been clearly, eloquently and plainly stated by several.

We are a small and self-regulating community and it has always been my experience that when folks are having connection "issues" (CTDS, causin lag etc.) they typically move off.  Nearly everyone I've encountered in this club/community has been this polite.

<S> To All

KBF Bartok

[Julin Eurthyr]

Let's be clear here.

Gaming is, probably, the hardest thing to do over the internet.  Anything that affects the unfettered, free, and frequent flow of data from user A to user B in a timely manner affects the gaming experience!!!.

Some things (internet outages, traffic, ie, LAG) are outside of our control.  Other things (like a firewall checking each packet to decide if it's an attack, and eventually blocking them), are within the user's control.

Experience has proven that the affects of a properly-tuned firewall's check isn't enough to interefere with the data-stream enough to affect the game.  People have played 100% stable games while protected by a software firewall.  I know, I used to have no problems when I had a copy of Zone Alarm that I could tell to open the SFC ports for, just like I have no problems playing through a properly-opened router.  And I've played missions with people who's firewalls were still allowing the data to flow freely.

Experience in my ISP job also tought me that the simplest way to reset a non-configuable software firewall is to uninstall it, reboot, and reinstall it.

When I get a chance, hopefully tonight or tomorrow night (5/3 and 5/4), I can get a chance to put this to test.  I'd like a software firewall-using volunteer to reinstall their firewall and join me on the Forge, for draft stability testing.  Let's see exactly how much of our stability vs. firewall issue is the firewall itself, and how much is "improper maintenance"...   

[Grim]

We are a small and self-regulating community and it has always been my experience that when folks are having connection "issues" (CTDS, causin lag etc.) they typically move off.  Nearly everyone I've encountered in this club/community has been this polite.

Precisely, that has been the case for years, hence the guideline which states if you have connection issues such as lag, drops, ctd's you either move off the front lines by going to a less pvp contested area, or log off until your issues are resolved. Over the years nearly everybody has followed this guideline and I don't see why we need to change this via forcing an authoritarian type situation such as banning people. What's next, we ban people who are on 56k from playing, due to slow load up times or lag?

I don't see how you can prove either that it is the software firewall that is causing drops, or ctd's in all circumstances, hell ive flown with people who i know for sure have no firewalls running same for myself and we get the occasional CTD or major lag.

[Bonk]

Considering what people are saying here, I think this bears repeating:

Read the text below very carefully (actually read it this time please):

Warning about Firewall and similar software

Most Firewall programs, Web Spam filters and other TCP/IP driver-based products (including spyware!) do not correctly implement the entire WinSock API. The shortcuts taken by the developers of such products cause Apache to fail. If you insist on leaving such programs installed, and have problems with your Apache installation, consider the suggestion below.

Problems Installing or Running Apache 2

If you encounter problems running Apache 2 under Windows, such as corrupted or incomplete file downloads, unexplained error messages, or a conflict with a software firewall, please place the following three directives in your httpd.conf configuration file to see if they eliminate the problems:

    EnableSendfile Off
    EnableMMAP Off
    Win32DisableAcceptEx

The general problem is that many people install various add-ons to windows (such as software firewalls, virus checkers, etc) that break some of the advanced functionality that Apache uses to speed the sending of files. The above directives turn off the advanced functionality and make Apache fall back to more basic (but slower) techniques. This resolves most, but not all of the potential problems. If you continue to experience problems, be certain that there is no spyware installed on the box, which exhibits exactly the same sorts of flaws (often more obviously).

If you encounter problems installing Apache .msi distributions, we have provided the TROUBLESHOOTING page to help you diagnose and fix most common installation problems.

http://www.apache.org/dist/httpd/binaries/win32/

I have come across this with Apache, in particular Norton/Symantec AV is known to interfere with AcceptEx. Perhaps people will be more inclined to believe the Apache developers than me...

I just searched the serverkit source for "WinSock"

Searching for 'WinSock'...
<individual results omitted for NDA compliance>
38 occurrence(s) have been found.

Looking at the files involved and code contexts I can safely say that the WinSock API is critical to the dynaverse serverkit, If I had a copy of the client source I'm quite sure I'd see similar results.

It does not matter how well the software firewall is configured, most of them do not implement the winsock API correctly, SFC depends on a proper winsock implementation, period.

You may experience some stable missions with a software firewall, but the fact is that they are completely unpredicatable (we do not have the source) How can you say that the (lets say) ~20% unstable missions you do experience are not due to the software firewall? You can't.

EDIT: Also, other conditions that the firewall may respond inappropriately to may or may not occur when you test it. Lets say the firewall goes super-horny when someone port scans your machine (which is not a threat with a secure configuration without a firewall), but it does not happen whiile you are testing - you will conclude the firewall is fine when it is not. There are countless scenarios like this.

Grrrr....     

* Bonk  takes deep breath... counts to 10...

[Bonk]

After a pause... some thoughts:

If people insist on running software firewalls while playing on the dynaverse I have the following options:

1) contact all software firewall manufacturers, obtain the SFC client source, modify the NDA and ask them to allow for full function of SFC's winsock and Accept implementations, providing both the client and server source.

2) Write my own open-source firewall that is compatible with SFC... (bing! hmmm... perhaps this is what I could do for the VMware ultimate appliance challenge... provide a gaming compatible linux NAT firewall VM... hmmm... might be possible...)

[Strat]

I like both of those...  At least having a open source FW and the OP Source code...

Get on it Bonk! 

[Dizzy]

Dizzy,

...may I suggest that you realize that some people that have properly configured firewalls can run the game just fine.

WRONG

It does not matter how well the software firewall is configured, most of them do not implement the winsock API correctly, SFC depends on a proper winsock implementation, period.

You arnt reading these posts frey. You are simply concerned for the 'greater good'. I get the big picture. It's no software firewwalls. That will lead to better play. I dont get it why peeps think having a software firewall option available for server play is cool. Can you explain why we should tolerate CTD's and disconnects even a little bit b4 someone gives up and moves off the front lines when it can be avoided in the 1st place??? Please explain that to me.

[Sirgod]

Lol, never thought you'd have the balls to give me a warning Frey. Well, Steven called and looks like we will get a paintball showdown at his place. Be there in June. May the man with the biggest balls win.

I will so Own you win It comes to not Being on the Dyna. 

Stephen

[Dizzy]

Lol, never thought you'd have the balls to give me a warning Frey. Well, Steven called and looks like we will get a paintball showdown at his place. Be there in June. May the man with the biggest balls win.

I will so Own you win It comes to not Being on the Dyna. 

Stephen

I'm gonna buy the most expensive sniper paintgun and the fastest auto-paintgun with the biggest clip so you better hope your leathers and gear cover all your skin or you're gonna be in a world of hurt! Muhahahahaha

[Sirgod]

Lol, never thought you'd have the balls to give me a warning Frey. Well, Steven called and looks like we will get a paintball showdown at his place. Be there in June. May the man with the biggest balls win.

I will so Own you win It comes to not Being on the Dyna. 

Stephen

I'm gonna buy the most expensive sniper paintgun and the fastest auto-paintgun with the biggest clip so you better hope your leathers and gear cover all your skin or you're gonna be in a world of hurt! Muhahahahaha

Oh Paint, Yeh I can rig the old Bren ten and Dragon to fire Paint... I have a basic Machine shop here. 

Stephen

[Strat]

I have an idea:

Let put together a committee.  We'll call it...  the United Naggers (UN).

First:  We send inspectors to see if the FWs actually cuase problems by setting up a test server, and by using the scientific method test specific Firewalls (all users on the Dyna have the same brand, version and settings), and keep statistical records of any crashes or disconnects or whatever.

Then we Bushify the situation and make grandiose clames of thier harm and true evil intent with our new information.  We'll even get Sattilite photo's on the PCs actually disconnecting...

After that we'll sit for weeks arguing about how Firewalls have ignore our demands and sit while we discuss a chapter 7 (How to ban or other exercise some kind of punitive action).

We'll overthrow the Dynaverse, impose a new government, and wind up splitting the community into several peices!

Hmm, this all seems oddly familiar...