Z-Net

[IPv6Freely]

.

[Sferics]

Oh, heres why mIRC sucks:

mIRC IRC URL Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

MIRC Nick Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

mIRC Unspecified DCC Request Vulnerability

mIRC IRC URI Handler Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

mIRC Font Buffer Overflow

mIRC DCC SEND Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

mIRC Scripting ASCTime Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

mIRC DCC Get Dialog Denial Of Service Vulnerability

mIRC DCC Nick Disclosure Vulnerability

mIRC USERHOST Buffer Overflow Vulnerability

mIRC Trojan Variant - port 445 worm/Trojan

Need I go on with the security issues mIRC has had over the years? No wonder I stopped using it.

Are you retarded? Most of those have been FIXED. Get in this century genius. Either way, I'm sure your perfect little client has spent it's entire history without its certain fixes. This goes to show that the few flaws found in mIRC are fixed.

mIRC has no native IPv6 support.

It may not be native, but you can get mIRC set up with IPv6, although it IPv4 works fine, so you're just being a whiny b***h about this. Most user won't even notice or care.

The mIRC license is crap.

This completely opinion, and again you say something without any proof. What's new? Most of the time, this doesn't even affect the end user.

Z-Net STILL REQUIRES PORTS TO BE FOWARDED

I should make this perfectly clear. Z-Net still has the same "issues" (if you could call not having your network configured right an issue with the software) that zbattle has.

Try again jackass. Zbattle does NOT support TCP, and Z-Net does. With UDP, both players are required to forward ports, but with TCP only requires one person to have their ports forwarded, and this is the case for direct connect as well.

[Tickenest]

With UDP, both players are required to forward ports, but with TCP only requires one person to have their ports forwarded, and this is the case for direct connect as well.

Wow, I was a little disappointed to read that Z-Net still requires one person to have port forwarding on, since you said in an earlier post that "the client doesn't need port forwarding." Now, in retrospect, I see that you meant that the person doing the connecting in Z-Net doesn't need port forwarding, not that nobody needs port forwarding, which really means that in this respect, Z-Net isn't much of an advance from what we've got now.

I guess Z-Net's biggest problem is that we don't rely on zbattle for community, just the technical aspect of the connection (with the forum providing the community and AIM providing the means for two players to get together), and most guys can figure out direct connection when zbattle isn't an option (e.g. anyone who plays me these days since I just can't get it to work with the router I bought several months ago.) I tried setting up a #nhl94 channel on GameSurge a while back, intending for it to be something like what the Fins have over on IRCNet, but almost nobody used it.

It looks to me as though Z-Net is pretty good software (and we're not all as bellicose as Freely, honest), but it's about 2 years too late to make inroads here. The community around here is, in fact, open to improvements and innovation, but I don't think the people who tend to lead the way in such innovations (and I count myself among those people) really see much added value in Z-Net. Maybe if we were playing lots of games around here instead of just one, it would have more value, but I don't think I'd have much luck getting people to join a combined Kirby's Dream Course/Legend of the Mystical Ninja league.

So...I don't know. I don't think you're going to win this one, sorry.

[IPv6Freely]

Need I go on with the security issues mIRC has had over the years? No wonder I stopped using it.

Are you retarded? Most of those have been FIXED. Get in this century genius. Either way, I'm sure your perfect little client has spent it's entire history without its certain fixes. This goes to show that the few flaws found in mIRC are fixed.

It's called history, my friend. mIRC has been plagued with security holes throughout its entire life. At some point along the way I said enough is enough.

It may not be native, but you can get mIRC set up with IPv6, although it IPv4 works fine, so you're just being a whiny b***h about this. Most user won't even notice or care.

Again, my point still stands. No native IPv6. You didn't really make any argument against my point.

This completely opinion, and again you say something without any proof. What's new? Most of the time, this doesn't even affect the end user.

It's not opinion. With the plethora of free IRC clients, why would I use one that isn't free? I'm not sure what kind of "proof" you're looking for. I think free vs not free is kind of obvious.

Try again jackass. Zbattle does NOT support TCP, and Z-Net does. With UDP, both players are required to forward ports, but with TCP only requires one person to have their ports forwarded, and this is the case for direct connect as well.

Ah, again with your lack of networking knowledge. I'll leave that one alone, I'm not really interested in belittling -you- despite you having made it personal, earlier. I'm here to debate some poor software, not the person promoting it.