>
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: M.A.Clubine [SMTP:maclubin@adala.smith.cis.syr.edu]
>Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 2:17 PM
>To: Gary Barnett
>Subject: RE: Win95
>
>
>Well said. I get tired of Win95 bashing real quick.
>
>The only problem with Win95, is that people who shouldn't be running a
>MUD see the words "ported to win95" and that's when the trouble starts.
>
True enough. Though experimentation is something I would encourage.. If
someone starts a mud and is in over their head, they will eventually stop
running the mud, or figure out how to redo it once they gain a clue. The
lessons learned will help them be a good builder, player or administrator;
wherever their talents lie.
>I personally liked it better when muds were harder to set up and
>configure, because then they were original. In the past 6 months I have
>seen more and more code this for me, or is there a patch requests than
>ever before.
>
How long does it take to determine a mud is 'basically stock'? Not long for me,
and I would think most others. Until a mud is 'ready', it isn't a game to me, it's
just a bunch of code trying to be a game, and succeding to a greater or lesser
degree depending on the time spent on it and the talents of it's creators.
I use OPC (other people's code) when it will save me a large amount of time and
when the features closely match what I intended to write anyway. The best example
I can think of is the improved edit patch. Though the auto-wear patch for eq is another
good example. It implements pure functionality and saves the users of it a good deal
of time.
The best example of a bad patch I can see is mobprogs. If you want a scripting
system for your mud, write it yourself.. you'll gain much insight into how things work
and can make many improvements over what the mobprog patch will give you.
>I guess this is what happens when the Internet becomes more and more common.
>The elite who were the majority are now the minority to the average user.
>
Hmm. Don't have a problem with that either :-) When my mud is ready for players
(about another year) it will most certainly stand out.. Time will tell if it's any fun and
if people decide to spend time on it. If everyone hates it, I will just have to try again
with a different theme :-)
>Good luck with your MUD.
>
Thanks!
>Monroe - Eternal
--Mallory
On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Gary Barnett wrote:
> >
> >
> >-----Original Message-----
> >From: Jerry Gilyeat [SMTP:jgilyeat@tommy.chesapeake.net]
> >Sent: Monday, February 03, 1997 12:55 PM
> >To: Shaw J
> >Cc: Circle Mud
> >Subject: Re: Win95
> >
> >
> >On Mon, 3 Feb 1997, Shaw J wrote:
> >
> >> I am running my mud on Win95, against many suggestions... it is just
> >> plain easier to handle than my bug filled Unix server.. but I have run
> >> into a problem finding patches and extra codes that are for a Win95 mud,
> >> many of the current patches do not have any documentation for usage on
> >> Win95... Does anyone know a site where I can find some Win95 resources?
>
> Just use the normal patches... the ones I've tried had no problems working.. after
> all the only differences between a unix version of circle and a 95 version is the
> Makefile, sysdep.h and conf.h (and some conditional defines in the other files)
> The code is the same.. just ported for another OS (i.e. win95.. instead of solaris
> or whatever)
>
> >
> >*shrugs* The Unix can be upgraded, and is INFINATELY less buggy then
> >winblows95 could ever be. As far as Win95 resources for circlemud, I
> >don't believe any such things exist.
>
> Let's take count shall we?
>
> How many bugs have you seen reported about people able to get 'root' on your
> average Linux box.. or any other version of unix? (Remember sendmail?)
>
> How many have been reported for 95?
>
> Just because you don't like 95 doesn't mean it is a bad OS.. It just means that
> it doesn't do the job for you. You might take stock of that before you give advice
> to others that is clearly biased towards what you understand and use.
>
> I'll give you that a unix box has advantages for running a server application that
> 95 will never get.. i.e. More reliable and less overhead. That doesn't mean someone
> can't run a test mud on it with excellent results, as my experiences have proven.
>
> An OS is only as good as it's weakest link.. and if that's the system administrator,
> then no amount of OS related techology is going to fix it. If this person knows
> 95 and is comfortable with that, isn't that what the decision should be based on?
>
> If pure performance and reliability were my concerns, I'd prolly write an NLM and
> run it in a protected ring on a Netware server.. but I don't.. why? Because it would
> be far too time consuming to develop it.. So I chose unix to run my mud on and
> 95 to develop it on.. Best of both worlds.. for me..
>
> --Mallory
>
>
>
>
>
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
> | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
> | http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html |
> +-----------------------------------------------------------+
>
, A ,
_,-~(_X_)~-,_
,/`,/ , ; , \,`\,
/-,/-,/~`Y;Y`~\,-\,-\ Michael A. Clubine (maclubin@syr.edu)
`Y` E t e r n a l (smith.syr.edu 4000)
} Dragon by: http://borogove.syr.edu/
{ Dan Hunt
} "The land of Eternal awaits you..."
V
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
| Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ: |
| http://cspo.queensu.ca/~fletcher/Circle/list_faq.html |
+-----------------------------------------------------------+
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 12/18/00 PST