<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
<title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
Did the original BF server work with 2.2 kernels? I never tried it,
but the consensus on the forum was that 2.4.18 was the "suggested"
minimum kernel version to get everything running under with no issues.
If 2.2 works that's great I guess, but I don't think 2.2 compatibility
is absolutely necessary if it's something that will slow you guys down
if the original BF server didn't work with it, but someone correct me
if I'm wrong and it did work with 2.2 kernels. I'm running Debian with
2.4.18 on on the 1.6 BF server with no issues at all.<br>
<br>
I'm no programmer, so won't comment on the static links ;).<br>
<br>
On the remote admin situation...<br>
<br>
We've already had that argument on this list, and it's pretty obvious
that we're not gonna see any type of third party program with the 1.0
release nor are we gonna see anything other than the remote console
that ships with the game, but all flames about that aside, what we <b>need</b>
if the remote console is all we're getting is...<br>
<br>
1) COMPLETE documentation about all the commands and what they do.<br>
2) a COMPLETE list of what settings will "default" to something if
unspecified when the server is started<br>
3) a COMPLETE list of what settings will be "off" if unspecified when
the server is started<br>
<br>
I think a good start would be having the server print its current
settings to the console as output when it starts. I don't mind having
to do things to the server via command line, and players who have
permission to change things on my server will learn the commands if
they must, but there's still not much documentation about the commands
even with the BF server especially as they relate to #2. Those of us
who play this game competitively have a specific set of settings that
must be enabled/disabled for matches, and a huge problem imo is having
players copy and paste a list of settings given to them by whatever
league or tournanment, then finding out when they get in the game that
they didn't specify something and it's defaulted to a setting that they
must change, and they have to go searching for what it is to change
it. This is an issue as an example with BF1942 and the camera and TK
punish modes/restrictions.<br>
<br>
Either the server has to print its settings to the console when
started, or there should be a command to manually print the settings to
the console to give people an idea of what they're dealing with and how
the server works, with BF1942 it was trial and error to find out what
your own server was doing.<br>
<br>
If you really wanna do us a huge favor just cause you're in a giving
mood, a graphical app that interfaces with the server console such as
the app that Kevin with blackbagops.com wrote for originally for BF or
wrapper to a web script that interfaces with the server console would
of course be fantastic ;). Since EA provides this to people who rent
servers from them, I don't see why it's too much to ask for them to
give that to us, after all we paid for the game too.<br>
<br>
Peter Chang wrote:
<blockquote
cite="midBB90216A0359D511B3CC000103BFD3329C11CB@maximus.dice.se"
type="cite">
<meta http-equiv="Content-Type" content="text/html; ">
<meta name="Generator"
content="MS Exchange Server version 5.5.2653.12">
<title>RE: [bf1942] Vietnam dedicated server?</title>
<p><font size="2">[ meta : i only joined last night so hopefully i'm
not breaking some ettiquette here by not catching up w/ all 10,000
messages and only searching for the message andreas forwarded me ]</font></p>
<p><font size="2">From: Andreas Fredriksson </font>
<br>
<font size="2">Subject: RE: [bf1942] Vietnam dedicated server?</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">> To be honest I wouldn't know. What I do know
is that there's a very talented</font>
<br>
<font size="2">> gentleman helping the DICE Canada team with the
Linux server so it's up to</font>
<br>
<font size="2">> that office to make arrangements for releases.</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">still not an 'official' notice, but i wanted send
an update</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">first, i am a contractor, not a dice employee, and
as such no arrangments have been made for me staying past the initial
delivery date. any bugs are all my fault :-) (we'll get to the
shortcomings that i know about in a third or fourth).</font></p>
<p><font size="2">second, i can confirm that andy berdan
(<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:andy.berdan@dicecanada.com">andy.berdan@dicecanada.com</a>) is the owner of the bfv dedicated servers
(win32 and linux) after yesterday's brain dump.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">third, ea wasn't keen (see point one on why i don't
know the actual wording used) on early releasing linux servers. their
own testing of the linux stuff has been zero.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">fourth, would it be possible for the person (or
company) hosting the bf1942 stuff to host the bfv files? either way
could they send me (probably best not to spam the entire list) mail at
either the dice or cs address so that i (andy's on vacation now and
will likely be so until after the ok) can arrange something.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">fifth, i tried to make the bfv server experience
live up to what you've come to expect having andreas and joakim's 1.6,
but there are some differences that come to mind. the two biggies are
packaging and remote admin.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">packaging - </font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">i followed the 1.6 strategy of shipping both
dynamic and static binaries w/ one difference. the bfv1942 .static is
completely static. ld complained that some symbol (i can't find it in
my notes right now) wasn't available in the libc.a version. my
understanding of the issue is that some systems either don't have
dynamic versions or have differnet versions of libstdc++. i play some
linker games and get the following from ldd. is this ok?</font></p>
<p> <font size="2">libncurses.so.5 => /lib/libncurses.so.5
(0x40020000)</font>
<br>
<font size="2">libpthread.so.0 => /lib/libpthread.so.0
(0x4005f000)</font>
<br>
<font size="2">libdl.so.2 => /lib/libdl.so.2 (0x400b1000)</font>
<br>
<font size="2">libc.so.6 => /lib/libc.so.6 (0x400b4000)</font>
<br>
<font size="2">libm.so.6 => /lib/libm.so.6 (0x401e6000)</font>
<br>
<font size="2">/lib/ld-linux.so.2 => /lib/ld-linux.so.2
(0x40000000)</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">additionally, i only really tested this on my
systems here: debian 2.2.x on a 1.7 p4 and mandrake 2.4.x on virtual pc
on mac os x :-) like bf1942 it doesn't do anything really whacky
(systemwise :-), but it would be good to get a sanity check from the
viewing public.</font></p>
<p><font size="2">remote admin -</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">andreas mentioned the remote console to me before
leaving, but not knowing how to test it i just asked around here. no
one around here really knew either so all did was connect, run a few
commands, and quit. needless to say this was not sufficient. i've
moslty locally merged all of the remote console fixes, but this will
probably not be in the 1.0 release (win32 or linux).</font></p>
<p><font size="2">questions/comments/ideas/flames?</font>
</p>
<p><font size="2">\p</font>
</p>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>