Telnet NOW! Campaign
Frogger
Hi all,
I was hoping you would all be interested in a new campaign I'm starting up
for generating interest in the Telnet services on the internet...
I feel that 'net newbies aren't being made aware of the many services
available and are unaware of the net outside the web!
http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html
Please let me know your comments/queries/ideas as well!
Thanks
Rob AKA Frogger
---
Addicted - http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/
Lee & Herring WWW Page - http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/fist/
NB: Any junk email received at my address will be returned along with several
copies of the unix source code or some other such junk..YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
David Rudy
In article o...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
George, why don't you visit the webpage, and see that they ARE providing
java telnet clients free of charge, to do what you suggest. Informed
decisions are so much better than pointless flames on how someone else
should be spending their time...
That address, again:
>: http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html
And I personally think it's a great idea if they can indeed get more
media and widespread coverage of telnet services. This of course includes
muds. I for one am tired of picking up a magazine titled "Internet"something
and seeing only Web page references.
David Rudy
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
George Reese
Frogger (fro...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
: Hi all,
:
: I was hoping you would all be interested in a new campaign I'm starting up
: for generating interest in the Telnet services on the internet...
:
: I feel that 'net newbies aren't being made aware of the many services
: available and are unaware of the net outside the web!
:
: http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html
:
: Please let me know your comments/queries/ideas as well!
:
: Thanks
How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
i think i've reached that point/where every wish has come true/
and tired disguised oblivion/is everything i do
-the cure
George Reese
David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article o...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
:
: George, why don't you visit the webpage, and see that they ARE providing
: java telnet clients free of charge, to do what you suggest. Informed
: decisions are so much better than pointless flames on how someone else
: should be spending their time...
That's not what they said in the post. They were talking about
promoting telnet. I flamed the promotion of a dead technology. Get
it?
: That address, again:
: >: http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html
:
: And I personally think it's a great idea if they can indeed get more
: media and widespread coverage of telnet services. This of course includes
: muds. I for one am tired of picking up a magazine titled "Internet"something
: and seeing only Web page references.
The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
old command line interfaces need to wake up.
George Reese
David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article 5...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: >old command line interfaces need to wake up.
: I believe telnet is as old an interface as ftp, yet ftp is still in
: widespread use. Consider the usage:
:
: ftp - file transfer
: http - hypertext (assumes a STATIC display) transfer
: telnet - transfer of dynamic (two-way) changing information
The web is not http.
The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
too.
: You see, the three have completely different uses. Most people getting
: on the "Internet" today are really only aware of the first two, altho they
: are always curious to hear about chatrooms, two-way communications,
: interactive games, internet phone, etc etc.
Most people use the web through a single interface. That is a good
thing.
: And sadly, most media has done a pretty BAD job at dealing with this
: third type of internet communication.
It is outdated and useless.
: Only through the fairly recent
: addition of Java have webpages been able to do true two-way interactive
: communications - mainly through the use of Sockets. But still, such
: solutions are proprietary for the most part and lacking standards.
:
: Telnet is not outdated, and is a very standard technology. And the majority
: of "web surfers" miss out on it. Especially since major providers such as AOL
: do not allow telnet:// style connections from their web browsers.
Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
the proper mud client is web accessible.
David Rudy
In article 5...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
>old command line interfaces need to wake up.
I believe telnet is as old an interface as ftp, yet ftp is still in
widespread use. Consider the usage:
ftp - file transfer
http - hypertext (assumes a STATIC display) transfer
telnet - transfer of dynamic (two-way) changing information
You see, the three have completely different uses. Most people getting
on the "Internet" today are really only aware of the first two, altho they
are always curious to hear about chatrooms, two-way communications,
interactive games, internet phone, etc etc.
And sadly, most media has done a pretty BAD job at dealing with this
third type of internet communication. Only through the fairly recent
addition of Java have webpages been able to do true two-way interactive
communications - mainly through the use of Sockets. But still, such
solutions are proprietary for the most part and lacking standards.
Telnet is not outdated, and is a very standard technology. And the majority
of "web surfers" miss out on it. Especially since major providers such as AOL
do not allow telnet:// style connections from their web browsers.
David Rudy
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
Walter Goodwin
In article <5b48ib$5...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
>David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
>The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
>old command line interfaces need to wake up.
So, if meridian becomes somewhat popular and lots of magazines refer to
it when discussing muds we should just dump all our work and
try to make graphical muds? :)
Frogger
Ok, I've just used at Alta Vista's newsgroup search and seen the follow
ups to my original posting (they haven't reached my news server yet) so I
thought I'd reply...
: In article o...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
As David Rudy pointed out this has already been done, however I don't
agree that all net related activities should go through the web... The
web is good (and I use it quite a lot) but it isn't great.
We all know how slow it can be and I can't see the situation improving
much in the future... I know that bandwidth sizes are increasing all the
time, but it seems to me that most "web developers" (inc Netscape and
Microsoft) have no realistic ideas of the current limitations of the
Internet.
I admit in a few years the 'net maybe able to handle what's
currently being thrown at it by the web, but u can guarentee that
Netscape, Microsoft and all the other plug-in developers will have come up
with a hundred and one new ideas to slow us to a crawl again (you only
have to look at the way Microsoft developes OSs to see that!)
This is why *I* personally believe other resources should be encouraged.
(Most of the net newcomers I've encounted often complain about the lack of
speed on the web)...
David Rudy wrote:
I for one am tired of picking up a magazine titled "Internet"something
and seeing only Web page references.
That's nothing... I get emails from Jornos who clearly have no idea what
Telnet is, so how can they represent it fairly?! (thanks for the support
David!)
George Reese also wrote:
: The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: old command line interfaces need to wake up.
Well, from the replies have so far George, that's a considerable number of
ppl who need to wake up. The web isn't the interface to the internet,
it's merely an application of the internet. It's not even a particularly
good one as (without the add of plugins, java, cgi etc.) it's a one-way
system (ie u read what someone else has put)... the Internet is a
communications tool, not just an on-line magazine (although that too has a
purpose).
I'm not saying the web is rubbish, I'm saying the users of the net should
be made aware of the options, it's only fair. In the same way ppl prefer
ms-dos over windows, I (and a lot of others) prefer telnet over the web
and the new users should also be given the choice. They can only make
that choice if someone tells them about it.
Thanks to all those who have already emailed me their support....
Rob
George Reese
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
: In article <5b4f4p$a...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >Most people use the web through a single interface. That is a good
: >thing.
:
: God forbid they should have to think.
:
: Hey, it is nice that there is a simple interface for folks to use
: but the attitude ...
Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
something new to learn.
: >It is outdated and useless.
:
: Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahha!
:
: 5% of Internet bandwidth and 30% of Internet work gets done over
: telnet. Another 30% of Internet work gets done with smtp, which is
: incredibly outdated and insecure.*
Where do these figures come from? Looks like a hat to me.
: *yes, those numbers are guesses, but probably not too far off.
Hmm, yes, out of a hat.
: Of course, George goes in for Java, which is incredibly up-to-date
: but still insecure.
My turn to laugh. Java is perfectly secure for most uses.
: >Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
: >the proper mud client is web accessible.
:
: Yup, why go for a nice clean interface when you can muddy things up with
: PPP and slip overhead, not to mention eat up cpu time.
Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds? Because using telnet
does not reduce slip and ppp overhead anyways?
George Reese
David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article 2...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
: >they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
: >something new to learn.
:
: with the telnet PROTOCOL. I will agree with you that the existing
: command line utility is not what the modern "point-and-click" user
: wants to use. Yet the protocol is still valid, and is STANDARD, which
: is more important.
There is nothing preventing using the telnet PROTOCOL from the web.
This thread was started by a post contrasting the web with telnet as a
tool. My entire point all along has been to enable mud access from
the web, not to thrust an old unfamiliar tool on a non-technical
public.
: >My turn to laugh. Java is perfectly secure for most uses.
:
: And a java interface to the telnet PROTOCOL can be very powerful.
Have I said anything that suggests otherwise? No, in fact I
referenced telnet in Java in the section you cut out.
: >Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
:
: I wonder what backs this up. There are hundreds of MU*s out there,
: most based off the telnet interface.
Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
: While it might not be the best,
: it is definitely the cheapest and fastest interface that I know of,
: requiring very little bandwidth. Most people can mud just fine on
: even a 2400 baud modem. So while it may 'suck', it is indeed the
: very best tool for the job. Try running java on a 386 with a slow
: modem, and see how much the java interface does indeed 'suck'.
Too bad. I do not see any benefit in coding to 386 standards. You
would be the first Sun guy I have encountered that suggests we should.
George Reese
Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: In article <5b48ib$5...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
: >David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
:
: >The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: >old command line interfaces need to wake up.
: So, if meridian becomes somewhat popular and lots of magazines refer to
: it when discussing muds we should just dump all our work and
: try to make graphical muds? :)
That's quite a leap in logic. Not using telnet != graphical. Unless
you think zMud or tf makes all muds graphical.
Walter Goodwin
In article <5b6a2k$2...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
>Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
>: In article <5b48ib$5...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
>: >The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
>: >old command line interfaces need to wake up.
>:
>: So, if meridian becomes somewhat popular and lots of magazines refer to
>: it when discussing muds we should just dump all our work and
>: try to make graphical muds? :)
>
>That's quite a leap in logic. Not using telnet != graphical. Unless
>you think zMud or tf makes all muds graphical.
Ummm, right. It was an analogy, you said that telnet was outdated
and obsolete compared to the web and should be discarded,
I replied that since graphical muds made text based muds obselete**,
then we should start making graphical muds also, In the same
way that artificial insemination makes sex obselete :) After all,
sex is an incredibly old and outdated way to propagate a species,
I can't wait until we perfect cloning ;)
Anyway, to make a long story short, just cause "a more advanced"
way might exist to do something, doesn't mean the older way is
obsolete and should be discarded.
** No, I don't think graphical muds are making text muds obsolete,
Mark Stanford
In article <5b6lns$c...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
[snip, snip, snip, snip, SNIP!]
> : If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See the
> : quoted paragraph above).
>
> No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
> protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
> protocol.
Apparently _someone_ doesn't understand how the Internet works.
MUD clients are simply using telnet to connect, and all of the data flow is based on telnet. What you see, and are apparently fooled into thinking is what is actually happening, is just the pretty GUI overlay put on there for people who can't type or read.
> The web is not http.
>
> The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
> too.
The web is by definition http. HTTP, as I'm sure Mr. Reese is aware, stands for HyperText Transfer Protocol. It was invented at CERN Laboratories in Switzerland in 1992. The definition of Hypertext is simply a large block of text with 'links' within it going to related topics.
It was originally viewed via telnet to the CERN site.
The definition of telnet in its most traditional form is simply a connection between two UNIX machines. Thus, any connection on the Internet uses telnet as its base, no matter how pretty it makes it look for you.
Things like FTP and HTTP are UNIX programs which run on connections based on the telnet program. So, Mr. Reese, this hated telnet of yours is actually something you're constantly using. Feel like you've been sleeping with the enemy?
Poor George's faith is betrayed as he finds out that he has all along been using telnet for everything. His mind frantically attempts to search for some shred of evidence against this... But alas, there is none. Would you like to know why, Mr. Reese? No matter how things are dressed up, made to look pretty and easy for people like you who don't seem to be able to read or type, it all goes back to UNIX.
Yes, UNIX. A (*gasp!*) command line! You have to use that keyboard instead of rolling a piece of plastic around brainlessly!
Well, see, there's this thing inside your skull called a 'brain' and...
... Sorry for the huge flame, I don't _like_ to flame people. However, I also don't like all these high and mighty graphics people who think graphics are superiour due to their ease of use. If you think something is superiour due to its ease of use, you are most likely too ignorant to know the things neccesary for anything slightly harder to use.
Command lines for most of the MUDding (read: intelligent) population are quite easy. They definitely are for me. Graphics are pointless, brainless -- just plain stupid in some situations. If you can't deal with the fact that the more crap you pile onto the true, pristine stuff, the worse it's going to get, you don't belong on a computer.
Ease encourages idiocy. This has been a trend throughout history: if you can do things too easily, you grow ignorant, and easier things attract more ignorant people.
I'd like to close this giant flame/sermon with the following quote from Mr. Reese, and a short reply to it:
> Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
> they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
> something new to learn.
Now, to everyone out there listening who's not George Reese, read this paragraph over a couple times. And keep in mind that Mr. Reese is attempting to actually GAIN credibility.
Is this as hilarious to you as it is to me?
--
+ Mark Stanford -- Karzan -- kim...@inetworld.net +
___ ___ _______ _______ _______ _______ ______
( Y ) _ Y _ \Y _ Y _ Y _ \
| l /| l | l /l___| | l | | |
| _ \| _ | _ l / ___/| _ | | |
| | | | | | || l Y| | | | |
l___| l___| l___| |l_______l___| l___| l
`---' `---' `---' `---' `---'
Carlos L. Myers
George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5b4f4p$a...@darla.visi.com>...
> Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
> the proper mud client is web accessible.
George, if you know anything about mud clients, you should know that they
are nothing but a glorified telnet interface.
Carlos
Carlos L. Myers
> Sorry, but that is not what telnet it. Telnet is among the more
> complicated, convoluted protocols on the Internet. The raw sending
> data back and forth you speak of is part of every single type of
> Internet communication.
How is telnet so complicated? Can you give us an example of how a normal
telnet session to a mud will be to complicated to the normal user?
Carlos Myers
--
Let's dance tonight to a virtual song
Press this key and you can play along
Rush - Virtuality
Carlos L. Myers
> Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
> : Ah, well here's the trick, I never said that it *wasn't* obselete
> : and outdated :) I was merely pointing out that you weren't
> : presenting any solid evidence. In short, pointing out that you
> : didn't have a point other than trashing telnet :)
>
> Sure I did, I am sorry you did not see it. Telnet is:
> * an interface non-techies avoid
I've seen many non-techies use telnet all the time but can't figure out
e-mail or *GASP* Navigator.
> * an anac[h]ronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI for
> all computing, especially the Internet
a*nach*ro*nism 1. A chronological error. 2. Something
occurring or represented as occurring out of its proper time.
Using the above definitions, your statement makes not sense. Anyways, the
trend I've seen is to move toward a GUI, not a SUI. Beside, there as one
single user interface before all the GUI stuff came around. It was called
a command prompt. Just not to many non-techies like it because it was
arcane and commands very from OS to OS.
> * not the best interface for mudding
It is the simplest and fastest of all other interfaces on the net. And
since almost all MUDs are text based, you don't need a more complicated
interface that can gum up things.
That is the underlying beauty of MUDs and telnet, you can use almost any
computer, even a dumb terminal, to play.
Carlos Myers
Mark Stanford
In article <5b6rm1$g...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
> Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
> : > The web is not http.
> : >
> : > The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
> : > too.
> :
> : The web is by definition http.
>
> Where is this definition?
Hypertext is the method by which anything on the web links. It is therefore all based on HTTP.
> HTTP is for the transfer of hypertext documents. The web is for the
> linking of the various protocols that make up the Internet. That is
> why you can do ftp, mail, news, telnet, AND http links inside an HTML
> document.
See above.
> : Things like FTP and HTTP are UNIX programs which run on connections based on the telnet program. So, Mr. Reese, this hated telnet of yours is actually something you're constantly using. Feel like you've been sleeping with the enemy?
>
> No, I feel like I am discussing this with someone who has absolutely
> no idea what they are talking about.
Hmm, aren't we friendly today...
> FTP, HTTP, and telnet are VERY different
> socket protocols. UNIX is an operating system. FTP, HTTP, and telnet
> have absolutely nothing to do with UNIX.
They are quite different, but they have everything to do with UNIX. FTP and telnet are UNIX programs. If you care to attempt to contradict this, you will fail, because they _are_ UNIX programs, though other platforms can emulate them.
> : Would you like to know why, Mr. Reese? No matter how things are
> : dressed up, made to look pretty and easy for people like you who don't
> : seem to be able to read or type, it all goes back to UNIX.
>
> Oh lord.
>
> In the beginning, God created UNIX, and it was good...
Then he created the web, and people misunderstood and overused it...
> : Yes, UNIX. A (*gasp!*) command line! You have to use that keyboard
> : instead of rolling a piece of plastic around brainlessly!
>
> Ever seen a UNIX workstation before? There is no command line
> interface unless you ask for one.
Something the intelligent user generally does.
> : Well, see, there's this thing inside your skull called a 'brain' and...
>
> Wish you had one.
Still don't see any evidence against this.
> : ... Sorry for the huge flame, I don't _like_ to flame people. However, I also don't like all these high and mighty graphics people who think graphics are superiour due to their ease of use. If you think something is superiour due to its ease of use, you are most likely too ignorant to know the things neccesary for anything slightly harder to use.
>
> Where did I say anything about graphics in any of my posts?
By saying that accessing MUDs with the web was better, you implied the usage of graphics. Text browsers like Lynx, if used to access MUDs, are going to be the same as any old telnet. You imply the usage of a graphical browser.
> You know what I hate? People who start to pontificate on a subject
> they are completely ignorant about.
Exactly what I hate. Which is the reason I so dislike your postings...
> : Command lines for most of the MUDding (read: intelligent) population are quite easy. They definitely are for me. Graphics are pointless, brainless -- just plain stupid in some situations. If you can't deal with the fact that the more crap you pile onto the true, pristine stuff, the worse it's going to get, you don't belong on a computer.
>
> Again, I never said anything about graphics. I said that muds should
> use the web as their interface.
See above.
> : Ease encourages idiocy. This has been a trend throughout history: if you can do things too easily, you grow ignorant, and easier things attract more ignorant people.
>
> What an elitist bunch of complete crap. There is no reason on earth
> my grandmother should know what find . -name \*.c -print | xargs wc
> does.
If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to, but she shouldn't, like her grandson, pretend to know anything about it if she doesn't...
> : I'd like to close this giant flame/sermon with the following quote from Mr. Reese, and a short reply to it:
> :
> : > Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
> : > they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
> : > something new to learn.
> :
> : Now, to everyone out there listening who's not George Reese, read this paragraph over a couple times. And keep in mind that Mr. Reese is attempting to actually GAIN credibility.
>
> I do not need to gain credibility. I already have it.
Shall we take a vote?
> : Is this as hilarious to you as it is to me?
>
> Your post is among the more ridiculous I have seen in a while :)
Why, thank you. Ridicule is a wonderful thing, especially when coming from someone as holy as yourself :)
See, Mr. Reese, you do not seem to understand my point: people such as yourself who argue that something is better because it is easier are generally only arguing that because of their own ignorance.
But of course, you are more credible, and no doubt use more of your brain, so who am I to question the great Reese?
Nick Hritsko
This message has been replied to soo many time that I'm not sure who
wrote what, and I am only taking credit for the lines that start with
an arrow such as, --->.
The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
old command line interfaces need to wake up.
---> I have to admit the web is a very cool PART of the net. It however
---> is in no way "the Interface to the Internet" I have been using
---> On-line services and the net' for about 6 years. I have since
---> kept subscriptions to multiple service providers, have 2 computers
---> each with 28.8 modems, a computer phone line and about anything
---> else you could immagine..(you seem to be pretty good at Immagining
---> things.) In this respect I would guess that I played some of the
---> first "text-based" games months, or years before you even touched a
---> computer. The web is cool, but it isn't the only part of the net.
I believe telnet is as old an interface as ftp, yet ftp is still in
widespread use.
---> Telnet is in no way an old interface, I use Telenet every day to
---> check 2 of my 3 E-mail accounts. The new internet service providers
---> in my area that started around xmas time all have telenet sites. In
---> fact anyone I know of that knows anything about computers knows how
---> to do things you can't do on the web such as; programming, editing
---> remote files, and having access to most of the software on the net.
---> by that I mean that a large portion of software is for UNIX --->
machines which are usually what people telenet to.
The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
too.
---> Actually the web is just a way to collect all of the pieces of the
---> internet into one place. It is not all of those things it's just a
---> nice way of making them easier to use. However it also causes some
---> problems. For example I have heard of ftp programs that can be set
---> to download an entire list of things, however you can't do that
---> with a web browser. Also the web itself is much different than the
---> copy of Netscape or IE that you are using. Netscape add features
---> to the web in the same way that a mud client adds features to
---> telenet.
You see, the three have completely different uses. Most people getting
on the "Internet" today are really only aware of the first two, altho
they are always curious to hear about chatrooms, two-way communications,
interactive games, internet phone, etc etc.
---> I belive that the general public are interested in all three
---> aspects equally. I know many of my friends are getting accounts for
---> all of the above features of the net.
And sadly, most media has done a pretty BAD job at dealing with this
third type of internet communication. It is outdated and useless.
---> This third type of internet communication isn't outdated there are
---> who knows how many IRC servers, muds, etc.. out there and if you
---> think I'm lying then see for yourself. I know IRC isn't telnet but
---> it also requires odd commands and is text-based which seems to be
---> what you are complaining about.
Only through the fairly recent addition of Java have webpages been able
to do true two-way interactive communications - mainly through the use
of Sockets. But still, such solutions are proprietary for the most part
and lacking standards.
---> I have not had a very good exp with Java. Many of the sites I go
---> to with Java are Slow, buggy, and when you finally get all the
---> data transfered it is something that isn't worth seeing anyway.
Telnet is not outdated, and is a very standard technology. And the
majority of "web surfers" miss out on it. Especially since major
providers such as AOL do not allow telnet:// style connections from
their web browsers.
---> I have to agree that AOL makes it a pain to use telenet from their
---> system however I do know that it is possible to connect using AOL
---> because one of my friends on vacation signed on to a mud I code
---> for and at the Unix prompt I get this nice little command that
---> lets me see where everyone is from.
Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
the proper mud client is web accessible.
---> Well Mud clients are actually pretty web accessible from your
---> standards. You use ftp (you said it was part of the web..) to
---> download them. Then you can configure them as your defult telnet
---> client in your web browser's preferances. (if this doesn't cause
---> too much thought.) Then whenever you click on a link your mud
---> client will open and now your playing a mud.
The rest of this message was written by Skullmar;
(mailto:skul...@geocities.com)
On the same line of thought. I am like most people I think graphics are
sorta cool sometimes but I just don't think they can substitute the
environment created by a mud. Look at it this way...When Television
came out everyone thought that there would be no need for books filled
with text when you could pop a VHS tape in your VCR and get all the
information from a person. However there are too many people who have an
artistic side that has a desire to dream, immagine, and venture into
your own worlds. A mud allows people to utilize their artistic
abilities. Also I would like to say that many mud players who have been
using computers longer than you have, have no reason to learn new
commands because they have been using the commands since before the
web's time... In the end I believe that the same people who you see on
muds now will be your future software designers, and many people who
start coding mess with viruses and stuff and to me you should try to
keep from stepping into someone else's turf.. if you want graphic muds
go ahead, but we (most mud coders) aren't going to help you one bit. We
like our text and that's that.
Two last notes;
1) My referance to virus' was in no way a threat I was just telling you
that I have met many a hackers during my mudding exp and know that they
can do some nasty stuff.
2) If you plan on spamming me read this:
LETTER OF WARNING.
To Whom It May Concern:
I do not wish to receive unsolicited advertisement or junk E-mail from
your location or account. This "Junk E-mail" is unwanted and unwelcome.
Do not attempt to E-Mail me any unsolicited advertisements or spamms.
Acceptable Use Policy.
A charge of up to $500.00 per occurance may be billed to you.
You must obey this acceptable use policy when sending
me E-mail. Individuals are welcome to send me non-commercial
mail. Due to increasing junk mail, commercial use of my
system is restricted, and fees will be charged. When you
transmit mail to my mailer, you are using my computer, and
I may bill you for it. Solicited messages and unsolicited
individually addressed non-commercial message may be sent
free. The fee for unsolicited mail sent by automated mailers
or as part of a mailing list or for an advertisement or flame
is $500. Such messages are also strictly forbidden. Inquire for other
fees. This policy is subject to change. By sending unsolicited
advertisements you expressly agree to the terms herein. You
further realize that such mailings to FAX machines and computer
systems are prohibited under federal laws (47 USC 227) and provide
for civil penalties and claims of $500.00 per occurrence
(47 USC 227[c]) may be assessed. This applies to the address
below.
This will be your only warning.
Skullmar (mailto: Skul...@geocities.com)
P.S. Anyone wishing to use this message can, as I found it on another
newsgroup.
George Reese
Frogger (fro...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
: George Reese also wrote:
:
: : The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: : old command line interfaces need to wake up.
: Well, from the replies have so far George, that's a considerable number of
: ppl who need to wake up. The web isn't the interface to the internet,
: it's merely an application of the internet. It's not even a particularly
: good one as (without the add of plugins, java, cgi etc.) it's a one-way
: system (ie u read what someone else has put)... the Internet is a
: communications tool, not just an on-line magazine (although that too has a
: purpose).
That's like saying, without the wheels, a car is not a very good mode
of transportation. Plugins, Java, and CGI are the ways in which the
web is made dynamic. You cannot exclude them and declare the web not
to be dynamic.
: I'm not saying the web is rubbish, I'm saying the users of the net should
: be made aware of the options, it's only fair.
And I think better time would be spent building a better interface
into mud games. What is telnet really good for?
* Access to UNIX servers. Web users ignorant of telnet clearly have
little need for this
* Poor access to a mud. Would it not be better to empower people with
good interfaces to muds instead of encouraging them to use poor ones?
: In the same way ppl prefer
: ms-dos over windows, I (and a lot of others) prefer telnet over the web
: and the new users should also be given the choice. They can only make
: that choice if someone tells them about it.
Telnet can be done through the web. It has been done (just damn
poorly). Telnet is the worst way to play a mud.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>: In article 5...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>: >The web is the Interface to the Internet.
The Web is a group of networked computers that intersects that
group of networked computers known as the Internet. Both terms
can also be used to describe various services available via said
computers.
>Most people use the web through a single interface. That is a good
>thing.
God forbid they should have to think.
Hey, it is nice that there is a simple interface for folks to use
but the attitude ...
>It is outdated and useless.
Bwahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahhahahahahha!
5% of Internet bandwidth and 30% of Internet work gets done over
telnet. Another 30% of Internet work gets done with smtp, which is
incredibly outdated and insecure.*
Of course, George goes in for Java, which is incredibly up-to-date
but still insecure.
>Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
>the proper mud client is web accessible.
Yup, why go for a nice clean interface when you can muddy things up with
PPP and slip overhead, not to mention eat up cpu time.
>George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
borg? as in "you will be assimilated"?
Don't count on it.
*yes, those numbers are guesses, but probably not too far off.
Robert
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
David Rudy
>they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
>something new to learn.
I believe that you are mistaking the 'telnet' command line prompt,
with the telnet PROTOCOL. I will agree with you that the existing
command line utility is not what the modern "point-and-click" user
wants to use. Yet the protocol is still valid, and is STANDARD, which
is more important.
>My turn to laugh. Java is perfectly secure for most uses.
And a java interface to the telnet PROTOCOL can be very powerful.
>Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
I wonder what backs this up. There are hundreds of MU*s out there,
most based off the telnet interface. While it might not be the best,
it is definitely the cheapest and fastest interface that I know of,
requiring very little bandwidth. Most people can mud just fine on
even a 2400 baud modem. So while it may 'suck', it is indeed the
very best tool for the job. Try running java on a 386 with a slow
modem, and see how much the java interface does indeed 'suck'.
David Rudy
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
Carlos L. Myers
>
> Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
They DO use telnet via a mud client.
All telnet allows you to do is to connect to a host and communicate with
it. If you don't know who to operate the host computer, then you won't get
much use out of it. It will not be an outdated interface, because this
very basic function will be needed no matter how graphical the Internet
becomes.
Carlos
George Reese
Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
: George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
Sorry, but that is not what telnet it. Telnet is among the more
complicated, convoluted protocols on the Internet. The raw sending
data back and forth you speak of is part of every single type of
Internet communication.
--
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
George Reese
: > Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
: > the proper mud client is web accessible.
: George, if you know anything about mud clients, you should know that they
: are nothing but a glorified telnet interface.
I know quite a bit about them, thanks :)
It seems you are having a hard time following the conversation. A
glorified telnet interface is not the same thing as being telnet. You
see, I am advocating accessing muds from the web. Some mud clients
now allow you to do that. If you want to call that a glorified telnet
interface, fine. But that is not telnet.
George Reese
Ainvar (ain...@enteract.com) wrote:: > : In article 2...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: > :
: > : I believe that you are mistaking the 'telnet' command line prompt,
: > : command line utility is not what the modern "point-and-click" user
: > : wants to use. Yet the protocol is still valid, and is STANDARD, which
: > : is more important.
:
: Mice and joysticks are great for hack and slash gore games, but are not ideal
: for MUDs which have things like talking and roleplaying. Thanks to the Telnet
: protocol a group of friends can run their own mud off a simple modem for free,
: since text requires so little bandwidth. (although i wouldn't advise running a
: full time serious mud off a modem :)
Not telnet does not mean using joysticks.
: <----- cut ----->
:
: > : >Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
: > :
: > : I wonder what backs this up. There are hundreds of MU*s out there,
: > : most based off the telnet interface.
:
: Make that ALL muds are played with telnet, with the exception of Meridian 59,
: Dragonspires, and other hack and slashathons.
Most are playable via telnet. Few are actually played via telnet.
: > Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
:
: If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See the
: quoted paragraph above).
No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
protocol.
: Personally I prefer the full screen unix telnet because it makes me feel like I
: am actually IN the game. Also, most modern muds have built in features to
: allow users to make their own macros, which makes mud clients rather pointless.
Uh-huh.
George Reese
Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: In article <5b6lns$c...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
:
: [snip, snip, snip, snip, SNIP!]
:
: > : quoted paragraph above).
: >
: > No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
: > protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
: > protocol.
:
I am quite aware how the Internet works. I likely have much more
experience with it than you.
: MUD clients are simply using telnet to connect, and all of the data flow is based on telnet. What you see, and are apparently fooled into thinking is what is actually happening, is just the pretty GUI overlay put on there for people who can't type or read.
*Some* mud clients can use telnet protocol. Many use raw sockets, and
others use special protocols. I do not know of any mud client that
requires telnet.
And, you are missing the point. I do not care a bit what the
underlying protocol used is. I am concerned with the interface. The
original post espoused promoting telnet as an interface to muds. I
have said use the web as an interface. That has very little to do
with the protocol.
: > The web is not http.
: >
: > The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
: > too.
:
: The web is by definition http.
Where is this definition?
: HTTP, as I'm sure Mr. Reese is aware, stands for HyperText Transfer Protocol. It was invented at CERN Laboratories in Switzerland in 1992. The definition of Hypertext is simply a large block of text with 'links' within it going to related topics.
HTTP is for the transfer of hypertext documents. The web is for the
linking of the various protocols that make up the Internet. That is
why you can do ftp, mail, news, telnet, AND http links inside an HTML
document.
: It was originally viewed via telnet to the CERN site.
I cannot speak to this, and it is irrelevant.
: The definition of telnet in its most traditional form is simply a connection between two UNIX machines. Thus, any connection on the Internet uses telnet as its base, no matter how pretty it makes it look for you.
This is completely false. Telnet is a PROTOCOL and an INTERFACE to
that protocol. A connection between two machines (UNIX has nothing to
do with it) is called a socket.
: Things like FTP and HTTP are UNIX programs which run on connections based on the telnet program. So, Mr. Reese, this hated telnet of yours is actually something you're constantly using. Feel like you've been sleeping with the enemy?
No, I feel like I am discussing this with someone who has absolutely
no idea what they are talking about. FTP, HTTP, and telnet are VERY different
socket protocols. UNIX is an operating system. FTP, HTTP, and telnet
have absolutely nothing to do with UNIX.
: Poor George's faith is betrayed as he finds out that he has all
along been using telnet for everything. His mind frantically attempts
to search for some shred of evidence against this... But alas, there
is none.
Reality?
: Would you like to know why, Mr. Reese? No matter how things are
: dressed up, made to look pretty and easy for people like you who don't
: seem to be able to read or type, it all goes back to UNIX.
Oh lord.
In the beginning, God created UNIX, and it was good...
: Yes, UNIX. A (*gasp!*) command line! You have to use that keyboard
: instead of rolling a piece of plastic around brainlessly!
Ever seen a UNIX workstation before? There is no command line
interface unless you ask for one.
: Well, see, there's this thing inside your skull called a 'brain' and...
Wish you had one.
: ... Sorry for the huge flame, I don't _like_ to flame people. However, I also don't like all these high and mighty graphics people who think graphics are superiour due to their ease of use. If you think something is superiour due to its ease of use, you are most likely too ignorant to know the things neccesary for anything slightly harder to use.
Where did I say anything about graphics in any of my posts?
You know what I hate? People who start to pontificate on a subject
they are completely ignorant about.
: Command lines for most of the MUDding (read: intelligent) population are quite easy. They definitely are for me. Graphics are pointless, brainless -- just plain stupid in some situations. If you can't deal with the fact that the more crap you pile onto the true, pristine stuff, the worse it's going to get, you don't belong on a computer.
Again, I never said anything about graphics. I said that muds should
use the web as their interface.
: Ease encourages idiocy. This has been a trend throughout history: if you can do things too easily, you grow ignorant, and easier things attract more ignorant people.
What an elitist bunch of complete crap. There is no reason on earth
my grandmother should know what find . -name \*.c -print | xargs wc
does.
: I'd like to close this giant flame/sermon with the following quote from Mr. Reese, and a short reply to it:
:
: > Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
: > they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
: > something new to learn.
:
: Now, to everyone out there listening who's not George Reese, read this paragraph over a couple times. And keep in mind that Mr. Reese is attempting to actually GAIN credibility.
I do not need to gain credibility. I already have it.
: Is this as hilarious to you as it is to me?
Your post is among the more ridiculous I have seen in a while :)
--
George Reese
Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: In article <5b6lj8$c...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
: >
: >Nor does it mean the older way is not obsolete and should not be
: >discarded. You have no point.
: >
: Ah, well here's the trick, I never said that it *wasn't* obselete
: and outdated :) I was merely pointing out that you weren't
: presenting any solid evidence. In short, pointing out that you
: didn't have a point other than trashing telnet :)
Sure I did, I am sorry you did not see it. Telnet is:
* an interface non-techies avoid
* an anacronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI for
all computing, especially the Internet
* not the best interface for mudding
--
George Reese
Simon Miller (mil...@inferno.cs.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
: On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
:
: > David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: > : >How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
: > : java telnet clients free of charge, to do what you suggest. Informed
: > : decisions are so much better than pointless flames on how someone else
: > : should be spending their time...
: >
: > That's not what they said in the post. They were talking about
: > promoting telnet. I flamed the promotion of a dead technology. Get
: > it?
:
: it may not be cyberkewl (or whatever you want to call it) and it may
: require the user to have half a brain -- but it's not dead.
What use does telnet have to 95% of the Internet population?
: Only last year I introcued Ethernet and Telnet to a network which had
: previously relied upon terrible slow serial links. Yes, we're talking
: mainframes -- they do still exist. For that network, Telnet was NEW
: technology and users were falling over each other to get their hands on it.
This is certainly a non-standard situation.
: I've posted before about the danger of assuming that everybody is using
: Windows. They aren't.
I know what most people are using. It is what I do for a living. And
it rarely requires telnet.
: > The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: > old command line interfaces need to wake up.
:
: You sound like an advertisement for Microsoft Internet Explorer.
I won't touch the thing.
: The Web
: is not *the* interface to the Internet: it is *an* interface to the
: Internet. It is also rapidly becoming a proprietary system as Netscape,
: Sun and Microsoft fall over each other to introduce new features while
: the WWW Consortium looks on and weeps...
How can a system that enables access to all the various Internet
protocols be called proprietary? I am not buying into Microsoft
bullshit. I am buying into common sense. Common sense says that
whatever technology can enable accountants and garabage men to use the
Internet is the kind of technology we need for the Internet. Telnet
is not that animal.
: I'm all for the web -- but to write off the Telnet protocol while it is
: still in wide use and while for many people, running Netscape is a
: significant and unnecessary waste of rescources (or perhaps not
: possible), is a very foolish thing to do.
Telnet is not at all in wide use :) That is what this thread is
about... resurrecting a dead animal.
Walter Goodwin
David Rudy
In article k...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Sure I did, I am sorry you did not see it. Telnet is:
>* an interface non-techies avoid
I believe the purpose of the 'Telnet NOW!' campaign is to note that
this is NOT the case. Non-techies do not 'avoid' it, they have merely
not been exposed to it. To avoid it, they would have to 1) know what
it is and 2) choose not to use it when it is presented as an option.
I believe that neither of these are true currently.
>* an anacronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI for
> all computing, especially the Internet
"trend towards a single UI" - I believe this can be applied to the web
a LOT more than telnet. Again, the telnet protocol is merely a protocol
for transferring character data between two machines. Telnet itself
is and has never been a UI. The User Interface is composed of the characters
send across the telnet session. The most popular form of these interfaces
includes using the ANSI escape codes to do such things as redraw the screen,
position text at certain places, display in color, etc. But that was not
telnet, that was nothing more than character codes.
Plus, telnet had many rivals, including rlogin and rsh - how then was telnet
meant to be the single UI for all computing?
>* not the best interface for mudding
Since telnet is nothing more than a text-transmission protocol, what then
IS the best interface for mudding? Again, "best" is probably in the eye
of the beholder. If the telnet destination has coded all the features of
today's modern "clients", it is indeed the best interface. My question is
then: If telnet is not the best, what is? What other protocol provides
the necessary two-way character communication needed for mudding?
David Rudy
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
Simon Miller
On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
> David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
> : In article o...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
> : >How about instead working on web-enabling non-web technologies?
> :
> : George, why don't you visit the webpage, and see that they ARE providing
> : java telnet clients free of charge, to do what you suggest. Informed
> : decisions are so much better than pointless flames on how someone else
> : should be spending their time...
>
> That's not what they said in the post. They were talking about
> promoting telnet. I flamed the promotion of a dead technology. Get
> it?
Telnet is NOT dead technology. It may not be hip, it may not be trendy,
it may not be cyberkewl (or whatever you want to call it) and it may
require the user to have half a brain -- but it's not dead.
Only last year I introcued Ethernet and Telnet to a network which had
previously relied upon terrible slow serial links. Yes, we're talking
mainframes -- they do still exist. For that network, Telnet was NEW
technology and users were falling over each other to get their hands on it.
I've posted before about the danger of assuming that everybody is using
Windows. They aren't.
> The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
> old command line interfaces need to wake up.
You sound like an advertisement for Microsoft Internet Explorer. The Web
is not *the* interface to the Internet: it is *an* interface to the
Internet. It is also rapidly becoming a proprietary system as Netscape,
Sun and Microsoft fall over each other to introduce new features while
the WWW Consortium looks on and weeps...
I'm all for the web -- but to write off the Telnet protocol while it is
still in wide use and while for many people, running Netscape is a
significant and unnecessary waste of rescources (or perhaps not
possible), is a very foolish thing to do.
--
Simon Miller
mil...@inferno.cs.bris.ac.uk
sm5...@bris.ac.uk
George Reese
: > Sorry, but that is not what telnet it. Telnet is among the more
: > complicated, convoluted protocols on the Internet. The raw sending
: > data back and forth you speak of is part of every single type of
: > Internet communication.
: How is telnet so complicated? Can you give us an example of how a normal
: telnet session to a mud will be to complicated to the normal user?
You are mixing issues. You do not seem to udnerstand the difference
between the telnet protocol and the telnet application. The telnet
protocol is a very complex protocol that has little to do with muds.
The telnet application (actually, there are a billion telnet
applications) implement that protocol in a very simplistic format.
The telnet protocol has nothing to do with my objections. I object to
promoting the telnet application as an interface to mudding.
George Reese
Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: In article <5b6a2k$2...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
: >Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: >: In article <5b48ib$5...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
: >: >The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: >: >old command line interfaces need to wake up.
: >: try to make graphical muds? :)
: >
: >That's quite a leap in logic. Not using telnet != graphical. Unless
: >you think zMud or tf makes all muds graphical.
:
: Ummm, right. It was an analogy, you said that telnet was outdated
: and obsolete compared to the web and should be discarded,
:
: I replied that since graphical muds made text based muds obselete**,
: then we should start making graphical muds also, In the same
: way that artificial insemination makes sex obselete :) After all,
: sex is an incredibly old and outdated way to propagate a species,
: I can't wait until we perfect cloning ;)
:
: Anyway, to make a long story short, just cause "a more advanced"
: obsolete and should be discarded.
: ** No, I don't think graphical muds are making text muds obsolete,
Nor does it mean the older way is not obsolete and should not be
discarded. You have no point.
--
Jon A. Lambert
Walter Goodwin <jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu> wrote in article <5b6ff7$g...@mozo.cc.purdue.edu>...
> I replied that since graphical muds made text based muds obselete**,
> then we should start making graphical muds also, In the same
> way that artificial insemination makes sex obselete :) After all,
> sex is an incredibly old and outdated way to propagate a species,
> I can't wait until we perfect cloning ;)
*grin* Isn't it muds that have made sex obsolete?
At least that's my girl keeps saying. Hmm, thats funny I
having trouble remembering what she looks like. :-P
On a semi-serious note. I noticed that many vendors have attempting to supply
this single interface all from their web browser. FTP seems to work fairly well.
At least from the user's perspective, its hard to tell whether your in FTP
or the web. I've used web enabled newsgroup access and found it very
awkward. On the other hand, I've seen some excellent IRC implementations.
I currently use IE with Internet News and Mail. Although the News and
Mail run separately have almost identical look and feel to Internet Explorer.
Oops, keep those Micro$oft flames to yourselves. Its not going to
change either of our opinions in any event. :-)
Neither Microsoft or Netscape provided any reasonable useable telnet
interface. About the only all-in-one free program I've seen is Netcom's
Netcruiser. I wouldn't recommend it to any serious net addicts. I outgrew
the program in about a month. It did have IRC, EMail, Gopher, Usenet,
Telnet, Web and even Finger. All from a common interface one click away.
While it was very minimal and the web browser extremely slow, it was
an excellent product for a first time internet user. They have upgraded it
several times, but I have no idea what it does now.
This is of course an older approach than that all or most internet access
will be done via programs invoked and/or embedded within the browser,
Java in particular. Suffice to say, whoever eventually wins the browser
market will have a great deal to do with future standards, be they
Java or something else. In the meantime Java is a safe bet to stick around
for awhile until Microsoft finally conquers the world. Muhahaha!
Then you will all be chanting ActiveX! ActiveX! Surrender your Arms!
Resistance is futile! ;-)
George Reese
Frogger (fro...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
: Once again my news server is behind... sorry!
:
: For those of you just joining this thread, the Telnet NOW! campaign is
: something which I have started up to promote Telnet applications on the
: internet (http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html)
:
: : Well, from the replies have so far George, that's a considerable number of
: : ppl who need to wake up. The web isn't the interface to the internet,
: : it's merely an application of the internet. It's not even a particularly
: : good one as (without the add of plugins, java, cgi etc.) it's a one-way
: : system (ie u read what someone else has put)... the Internet is a
: : communications tool, not just an on-line magazine (although that too has a
: : purpose).
: George replied:
: : That's like saying, without the wheels, a car is not a very good mode
: : of transportation. Plugins, Java, and CGI are the ways in which the
: : web is made dynamic. You cannot exclude them and declare the web not
: : to be dynamic.
:
: java support, a collection of plugins, etc etc... Even if they do, the
: "web" is still very slow at its job. Most "web talkers" that I've seen
: require u too refresh every time u want an update, not exactly dynamic
: (IMHO)
Only lynx does not come with Java support. BFD. Lynx people are
inclined to know about telnet anyways :)
: George also wrote:
:
: : I think better time would be spent building a better interface
: : into mud games. What is telnet really good for?
:
: : * Access to UNIX servers. Web users ignorant of telnet clearly have
: : little need for this
:
: Well that depends, system admin might have trouble booting their web
: servers without some kind of telnet/cli interface.
They should be using ssh unless they like giving out their admin
password.
: : * Poor access to a mud. Would it not be better to empower people with
: : good interfaces to muds instead of encouraging them to use poor ones?
:
: I don't agree that telnet is a poor way to access a mud, which is the
: whole point of my campaign, to let ppl know the options and let them make
: up their own minds...
My point is that the effort is better spent making it easier for
people to use muds... Not draw them into an outdated way of doing so.
: : Telnet can be done through the web. It has been done (just damn
: : poorly). Telnet is the worst way to play a mud.
:
: Poor access to a mud... hmm well that depends on how the mud is written
: right? I've seen systems that include a "mud client" interface in their
: code so everyone can use it. That goes for talkers and BBSs too....
That is certainly very bad mud design.
: BTW: Most "mud clients" *are* simply telnet programs with a different
: interface, I should know seeing as I've written one.
So I have I. I am working out a specific protocol for building
smarter mud clients. Most mud clients are simply TCP/IP sockets that
send and receive raw data. Some actually negotiate telnet.
: : What use does telnet have to 95% of the Internet population?
:
: Well to everyone on the Internet (not just 95%) telnet programs gives them
: access to MUDs, talkers, BBS systems, the web (via lynx) ... urm come to
: think of it, everything the net has to offer. There are ppl out there who
: only access the net via text terminals you know. And no, that doesn't
: mean they have to use UNIX either!
Those people already know about telnet because their life is so
limited that that is all they can do.
: : I know what most people are using. It is what I do for a living. And
: : it rarely requires telnet.
:
: Erm, right. My job required me to use a telnet to an AS/400 machine. Just
: beacuse *you* don't use it, doesn't mean that others don't.
Telnet is not the best way to do that. ssh is.
I actually have developed in a lot of environments. Yes, I have used
telnet (before ssh was big). Still, what I do is not what 99% of the
people on the net are doing. Remember your target audience. I am not
it.
: : Telnet is not at all in wide use :) That is what this thread is
: : about... resurrecting a dead animal.
:
: This thread is about making new net users realise there is more to the net
: than just the web.
The web should be able to incorporate those things. And allowing the
web to do so will attract many more neophytes than espousing a style
of technology that these people generally shun.
: In all the Universities I have visited, the students and the staff use
: telnet regularly. Everyone I've introduced to telnet now use it more than
: the web.
I seriously find this hard to believe.
: The people I work with still use telnet to hook up to an
: AS/400 instead of the graphical interface that they all have access to.
: There are now hundreds of talkers, muds and BBSs on the internet with the
: numbers increasing daily. Hardly "a dead animal".
Well, I certainly cannot explain this isolated phenomenon.
: The only reason why this campaign exists is to make the net newbies
: realise these services exists, because if we don't do it no one else will.
:
: We just don't have the commercial power of the web, that certainly doesn't
: mean we should just throw it away.
:
: Why shouldn't we promote Telnet? Just because you don't like it?
No. The goal, I assume, is to attract more people to mudding. I
agree with that goal. I am of the opinion that you are wasting time
promoting telnet when it would be more fruitful to enable mud access
from the web. The best way to do this, IMHO, is to develop a mud
client protocol that mud servers can implement and all clients can be
written to.
Carlos L. Myers
> : e-mail or *GASP* Navigator.
>
> Well, I have been developing custom applications for users for a
> while, and they do not like telnet.
Why most windows based telnet apps fail is because of poor design of the
app and not the telnet protocal itself. It is a shame that the best telnet
apps are mud clients.
> : > * an anac[h]ronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI
for
> : > all computing, especially the Internet
> :
> : a*nach*ro*nism 1. A chronological error. 2. Something
> : occurring or represented as occurring out of its proper time.
> :
> : Using the above definitions, your statement makes not sense.
>
> Using telnet today is using it out of its proper time. Its time has
> come and gone.
Can you give example of why the basic transmitting and reciving of data is
outdated? That is, after all, what telnet was designed to do. And it has
the widest base of support for computer<->computer comunications then any
other protocal. There are very few systems that does not have some form of
a telnet app installed on them. Even Win 95 comes with a telnet client,
all be it a very poor one.
Are you also going to say that Kermit is obsolite because most terminal
programs implements a very poor version of the protocal? In fact, Kermit
can be just as fast, even faster, then Z-modem if you use the whole
protocal. Also, you will have to add to the fact that Kermit is more
reliable and more versatile then Z-modem.
And *IF* telnet is so outdated, then what is its successer?
> : Anyways, the
> : trend I've seen is to move toward a GUI, not a SUI. Beside, there as
one
> : single user interface before all the GUI stuff came around. It was
called
> : a command prompt. Just not to many non-techies like it because it was
> : arcane and commands very from OS to OS.
>
> Really? The most common operating system for users, Windows, is
> moving to a single Internet Explorer interface, not just for the
> Internet, but for the entire OS.
But there is a large portion of users that don't use or refuse to use
Windows or any other GUI OS. Plus, I see very little similarity between IE
and Window 95 Explorer other then the fact that they both are GUI apps.
> Netscape is moving to do the same thing.
Netscape apps maybe similar to each other, but they are not that similar to
other non-netscape apps outside of the web-bowsers relm. And the only
reason that web-browsers as so similar to each other is because they do the
same basic functions.
> How about Lotus Notes, which predates both of the above trends?
I haven't use it myself, so I don't know what it looks like and how it is
used.
> : > * not the best interface for mudding
> :
> : It is the simplest and fastest of all other interfaces on the net. And
> : since almost all MUDs are text based, you don't need a more complicated
> : interface that can gum up things.
>
> Then why do most people use mud clients?
The heart of all mud clients is a telnet app. It just has some extra
features like aliases and triggers that make playing a mud easier. In a
nutshell, when you are using a mud client, you are using a very advanced
telnet app.
> : That is the underlying beauty of MUDs and telnet, you can use almost
any
> : computer, even a dumb terminal, to play.
>
> That does not mean that using a dumb terminal is the best, or even
> recommendable way to play.
There are still many vt100 terminals out there on the net and you must take
them into consideration. Beside many MUD players where first introdused to
MUDs on a vt100 or similer dumb terminal.
And there are cases where a telnet is the *ONLY* option a person has do to
policy restrictions forbiding unapproved client softare begin used on the
system. And since telnet is already provided on most of those systems,
people will use it.
George Reese
: <5b77tg$q...@darla.visi.com>...
: > Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
: > : I've seen many non-techies use telnet all the time but can't figure out
: > : e-mail or *GASP* Navigator.
: >
: > Well, I have been developing custom applications for users for a
: > while, and they do not like telnet.
:
: Why most windows based telnet apps fail is because of poor design of the
: app and not the telnet protocal itself. It is a shame that the best telnet
: apps are mud clients.
Mud clients are not telnet apps.
: > : > * an anac[h]ronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI
: for
: > : > all computing, especially the Internet
: > :
: > : a*nach*ro*nism 1. A chronological error. 2. Something
: > : occurring or represented as occurring out of its proper time.
: > :
: > : Using the above definitions, your statement makes not sense.
: >
: > Using telnet today is using it out of its proper time. Its time has
: > come and gone.
:
: Can you give example of why the basic transmitting and reciving of data is
: outdated?
That is called IP. There are several low level protocols built on top
of IP. The most common are TCP and UDP. On top of those low level
protocols are several high level protocols. Among the high level
protocols are HTTP, FTP, and telnet.
Mud clients tend not to use a high level protocol. They tend to use
straight TCP/IP.
: That is, after all, what telnet was designed to do. And it has
: the widest base of support for computer<->computer comunications then any
: other protocal. There are very few systems that does not have some form of
: a telnet app installed on them. Even Win 95 comes with a telnet client,
: all be it a very poor one.
That does not mean people actually use telnet.
: Are you also going to say that Kermit is obsolite because most terminal
: programs implements a very poor version of the protocal? In fact, Kermit
: can be just as fast, even faster, then Z-modem if you use the whole
: protocal. Also, you will have to add to the fact that Kermit is more
: reliable and more versatile then Z-modem.
Irrelevant. Few people use any of those any more.
: And *IF* telnet is so outdated, then what is its successer?
Nothing. It requires no successor. I am saying the way people use
computers has left telnet behind.
: > : Anyways, the
: > : trend I've seen is to move toward a GUI, not a SUI. Beside, there as
: one
: > : single user interface before all the GUI stuff came around. It was
: called
: > : a command prompt. Just not to many non-techies like it because it was
: > : arcane and commands very from OS to OS.
: >
: > Really? The most common operating system for users, Windows, is
: > moving to a single Internet Explorer interface, not just for the
: > Internet, but for the entire OS.
:
: But there is a large portion of users that don't use or refuse to use
: Windows or any other GUI OS.
One word: geek
I mean really, do you want to develop for these people or the majority
of the people in the world? I choose the majority.
: Plus, I see very little similarity between IE
: and Window 95 Explorer other then the fact that they both are GUI apps.
I need to take a minute to compose myself here. First off, I am
referring to Windows 97. Second off, IE and Windows 95 explorer AFAIK
shares a common code base :)
: > Netscape is moving to do the same thing.
:
: Netscape apps maybe similar to each other, but they are not that similar to
: other non-netscape apps outside of the web-bowsers relm. And the only
: reason that web-browsers as so similar to each other is because they do the
: same basic functions.
Take a look at netscape Communicator.
Also take a look at the Marimba products.
: > How about Lotus Notes, which predates both of the above trends?
:
: I haven't use it myself, so I don't know what it looks like and how it is
: used.
Among the most common business interfaces to team productivity.
: > : > * not the best interface for mudding
: > :
: > : It is the simplest and fastest of all other interfaces on the net. And
: > : since almost all MUDs are text based, you don't need a more complicated
: > : interface that can gum up things.
: >
: > Then why do most people use mud clients?
:
: The heart of all mud clients is a telnet app. It just has some extra
: features like aliases and triggers that make playing a mud easier. In a
: nutshell, when you are using a mud client, you are using a very advanced
: telnet app.
Please see my explanation of protocols above.
: > : That is the underlying beauty of MUDs and telnet, you can use almost
: any
: > : computer, even a dumb terminal, to play.
: >
: > That does not mean that using a dumb terminal is the best, or even
: > recommendable way to play.
:
: There are still many vt100 terminals out there on the net and you must take
: them into consideration. Beside many MUD players where first introdused to
: MUDs on a vt100 or similer dumb terminal.
Non-sequitor. I am not suggesting muds stop supporting telnet. I am
saying we move clients beyond telnet to make mudding easier. We do
not need to limit mudding to a least common denominator.
: And there are cases where a telnet is the *ONLY* option a person has do to
: policy restrictions forbiding unapproved client softare begin used on the
: system. And since telnet is already provided on most of those systems,
: people will use it.
Too bad, so sad.
George Reese
: > Walter Goodwin (jgoo...@expert.cc.purdue.edu) wrote:
: > : Ah, well here's the trick, I never said that it *wasn't* obselete
: > : and outdated :) I was merely pointing out that you weren't
: > : presenting any solid evidence. In short, pointing out that you
: > : didn't have a point other than trashing telnet :)
: > Sure I did, I am sorry you did not see it. Telnet is:
: > * an interface non-techies avoid
: I've seen many non-techies use telnet all the time but can't figure out
: e-mail or *GASP* Navigator.
Well, I have been developing custom applications for users for a
while, and they do not like telnet.
: > * an anac[h]ronism in a time where the trend is towards a single UI for
: > all computing, especially the Internet
:
: a*nach*ro*nism 1. A chronological error. 2. Something
: occurring or represented as occurring out of its proper time.
:
: Using the above definitions, your statement makes not sense.
Using telnet today is using it out of its proper time. Its time has
come and gone.
: Anyways, the
: trend I've seen is to move toward a GUI, not a SUI. Beside, there as one
: single user interface before all the GUI stuff came around. It was called
: a command prompt. Just not to many non-techies like it because it was
: arcane and commands very from OS to OS.
Really? The most common operating system for users, Windows, is
moving to a single Internet Explorer interface, not just for the
Internet, but for the entire OS.
Netscape is moving to do the same thing.
How about Lotus Notes, which predates both of the above trends?
: > * not the best interface for mudding
:
: It is the simplest and fastest of all other interfaces on the net. And
: since almost all MUDs are text based, you don't need a more complicated
: interface that can gum up things.
Then why do most people use mud clients?
: That is the underlying beauty of MUDs and telnet, you can use almost any
: computer, even a dumb terminal, to play.
That does not mean that using a dumb terminal is the best, or even
recommendable way to play.
--
George Reese
Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: In article <5b6rm1$g...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
:
: > Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: > : > The web is not http.
: > : >
: > : > The web is ftp, gopher, http, and many other things. It can be muds
: > : > too.
: > :
: > : The web is by definition http.
: >
: > Where is this definition?
:
: Hypertext is the method by which anything on the web links. It is therefore all based on HTTP.
Damn, there's a leap of logic. Hypertext documents (HTML) are the
kind of document that allows you to link to HTTP, FTP, GOPHER, telnet,
and other servers. The web is all those things HTML docs allow you to
connect to. That is why it is called a web!
: > HTTP is for the transfer of hypertext documents. The web is for the
: > linking of the various protocols that make up the Internet. That is
: > why you can do ftp, mail, news, telnet, AND http links inside an HTML
: > document.
:
: See above.
Above made no sense.
: > : Things like FTP and HTTP are UNIX programs which run on connections based on the telnet program. So, Mr. Reese, this hated telnet of yours is actually something you're constantly using. Feel like you've been sleeping with the enemy?
: >
: > No, I feel like I am discussing this with someone who has absolutely
: > no idea what they are talking about.
:
: Hmm, aren't we friendly today...
Come on! You are saying things that are completely untrue. You
should not be posting on a subject about which you know very little.
You should also learn how to wrap your posts to 80 cols.
: > FTP, HTTP, and telnet are VERY different
: > socket protocols. UNIX is an operating system. FTP, HTTP, and telnet
: > have absolutely nothing to do with UNIX.
:
: They are quite different, but they have everything to do with UNIX. FTP and telnet are UNIX programs. If you care to attempt to contradict this, you will fail, because they _are_ UNIX programs, though other platforms can emulate them.
They are not UNIX programs. They are programs for many operating
systems. Other OS's do not emulate them, they USE them. Big
difference.
Besides, your point was that everything is telnet, which is completely
insane.
: > : Would you like to know why, Mr. Reese? No matter how things are
: > : dressed up, made to look pretty and easy for people like you who don't
: > : seem to be able to read or type, it all goes back to UNIX.
: >
: > Oh lord.
: >
: > In the beginning, God created UNIX, and it was good...
:
: Then he created the web, and people misunderstood and overused it...
Well, I have been around the Internet since before the web, and I feel
I have a very good grasp of it (it was what I get paid to do). No
other technology has enabled users to use a computer like the web.
The so-called overuse is simply building on that success to greater
empower people.
: > : Yes, UNIX. A (*gasp!*) command line! You have to use that keyboard
: > : instead of rolling a piece of plastic around brainlessly!
: >
: > Ever seen a UNIX workstation before? There is no command line
: > interface unless you ask for one.
:
: Something the intelligent user generally does.
Ahh... people who do not use UNIX like you do are not intelligent.
: > : Well, see, there's this thing inside your skull called a 'brain' and...
: >
: > Wish you had one.
:
: Still don't see any evidence against this.
Everything you post...
: > : ... Sorry for the huge flame, I don't _like_ to flame people. However, I also don't like all these high and mighty graphics people who think graphics are superiour due to their ease of use. If you think something is superiour due to its ease of use, you are most likely too ignorant to know the things neccesary for anything slightly harder to use.
: >
: > Where did I say anything about graphics in any of my posts?
:
: By saying that accessing MUDs with the web was better, you implied
: the usage of graphics. Text browsers like Lynx, if used to access
: MUDs, are going to be the same as any old telnet. You imply the usage
: of a graphical browser.
Many people use a GUI telnet. Yes, I imply the use of a graphical
browser. That does not mean I am supporting graphical muds.
: > You know what I hate? People who start to pontificate on a subject
: > they are completely ignorant about.
:
: Exactly what I hate. Which is the reason I so dislike your postings...
Well, everything you have said is pretty much patently false.
: > : Command lines for most of the MUDding (read: intelligent) population are quite easy. They definitely are for me. Graphics are pointless, brainless -- just plain stupid in some situations. If you can't deal with the fact that the more crap you pile onto the true, pristine stuff, the worse it's going to get, you don't belong on a computer.
: >
: > Again, I never said anything about graphics. I said that muds should
: > use the web as their interface.
:
: See above.
Yes, not only do you think everything is telnet, now you think
anything in a GUI environment makes a graphical mud.
All you people playing muds from Windows, you are playing graphical
muds!
: > : Ease encourages idiocy. This has been a trend throughout history: if you can do things too easily, you grow ignorant, and easier things attract more ignorant people.
: >
: > What an elitist bunch of complete crap. There is no reason on earth
: > my grandmother should know what find . -name \*.c -print | xargs wc
: > does.
:
: If she doesn't want to, she doesn't have to, but she shouldn't, like her grandson, pretend to know anything about it if she doesn't...
Hmm, I am a UNIX sys admin, been doing Internet development since
1991, and many other things. I have the credentials to back up what I
have said.
But you ignored the point I was making. That is that your statement
basically says that everyone should know how to use a UNIX command
line in order to play a mud!
: > : I'd like to close this giant flame/sermon with the following quote from Mr. Reese, and a short reply to it:
: > :
: > : > Why should people have to learn a bunch of different interfaces when
: > : > they can use one? Computers exist to empower people, not to give them
: > : > something new to learn.
: > :
: > : Now, to everyone out there listening who's not George Reese, read this paragraph over a couple times. And keep in mind that Mr. Reese is attempting to actually GAIN credibility.
: >
: > I do not need to gain credibility. I already have it.
:
: Shall we take a vote?
Sure.
: > : Is this as hilarious to you as it is to me?
: >
: > Your post is among the more ridiculous I have seen in a while :)
:
: Why, thank you. Ridicule is a wonderful thing, especially when coming from someone as holy as yourself :)
:
: See, Mr. Reese, you do not seem to understand my point: people such as yourself who argue that something is better because it is easier are generally only arguing that because of their own ignorance.
Please explain what exactly I am ignorant about? You seem to imply
that I am ignorant because I want computers to be easy to use. That
is the position of a total elitist.
: But of course, you are more credible, and no doubt use more of your brain, so who am I to question the great Reese?
Well, not someone to question me on this subject. You are very
ignorant on this topic.
Jon A. Lambert
Mark Stanford <kim...@inetworld.net> wrote in article
<kimmar-1001...@dialin117.inetworld.net>...
> In article <5b6rm1$g...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
>
>
> > FTP, HTTP, and telnet are VERY different
> > socket protocols. UNIX is an operating system. FTP, HTTP, and telnet
> > have absolutely nothing to do with UNIX.
>
> They are quite different, but they have everything to do with UNIX. FTP and telnet are UNIX
programs. If you care to attempt to contradict this, you will fail, because they _are_ UNIX
programs, though other platforms can emulate them.
No telnet and FTP are Windows programs. My computer only acts like a Unix
machine, when I tell it to and only then. :-P
I believe that the people who thought up the internet had some UNIX
background. They carelessly left specs on the internet lying about for people
at DEC, IBM, Apple, Microsoft and others to look at.
From my limited and feeble understanding of the net, here is my understanding:
There are these little TCP packets flitting about about the world being moved
around by some divine force. There are things around too, like UDP, PUP, GCP
and some who wear no clothes and travel completely RAW. You need to steer
clear of these ferocious monsters, unless you have good reason to mess with
them.
These TCP packets find your computer by torturing other computers you are
friendly with. Once they find you they attempt to attack certain ports of
your computer. The port they attack had better have the proper defense to
to withstand this assault. These TCP packets contain explicit attack
orders like IPX, HTTP, FTP, TELNET, RJE, SMTP, FINGER and many others.
I am particulary fond of FINGER since this is your computer's final defense
mechanism. An application defending a given port needs to understand how to
deal with different types of TCP invaders or all is lost.
Come on guys, relax and enjoy. :-)
Carlos L. Myers
> : > Sorry, but that is not what telnet it. Telnet is among the more
> : > complicated, convoluted protocols on the Internet. The raw sending
> : > data back and forth you speak of is part of every single type of
> : > Internet communication.
> :
> : How is telnet so complicated? Can you give us an example of how a
normal
> : telnet session to a mud will be to complicated to the normal user?
>
> You are mixing issues. You do not seem to udnerstand the difference
> between the telnet protocol and the telnet application. The telnet
> protocol is a very complex protocol that has little to do with muds.
> The telnet application (actually, there are a billion telnet
> applications) implement that protocol in a very simplistic format.
> The telnet protocol has nothing to do with my objections. I object to
> promoting the telnet application as an interface to mudding.
No, your mixing the issues. You say users won't use telnet because it is
too complicated to use. Users can care less about *HOW* the protocal
works, just that the interface is simple enough for them to use. And since
telnet apps are the interface that user must deal with, you thusly made the
statement that telnet apps are too compicated for the general user.
Now you say that those same apps implement the protocal in a simple format,
implying that telnet apps are simple enough for the general user. I could
not have put you in a nicer little box if I planned it.
Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
Carlos L. Myers
> : does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
>
How is a no-thrills communications tool like telnet useless?
Not everything out on the internet is excisable from the web. There is
alot of information in which you can only retrive via a no-thrills
communications tool like telnet. That was the whole point of the Telnet
NOW! campaign. A side benefit of the campain will be to promote better,
easier to use telnet apps to retrive that data. And that will benefit
everybody.
Carlos Myers
P.S. I am making this my last post on the subject. Arguing with Mr. Reese
is like arging with a wall about why it needs a doorway so that you can get
to the other side.
George Reese
: <5b728m$m...@darla.visi.com>...: > : George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
: > : <5b6lh0$c...@darla.visi.com>...
: > : > Sorry, but that is not what telnet it. Telnet is among the more
: > : > complicated, convoluted protocols on the Internet. The raw sending
: > : > data back and forth you speak of is part of every single type of
: > : > Internet communication.
: > :
: > : How is telnet so complicated? Can you give us an example of how a
: normal
: > : telnet session to a mud will be to complicated to the normal user?
: >
: > You are mixing issues. You do not seem to udnerstand the difference
: > between the telnet protocol and the telnet application. The telnet
: > protocol is a very complex protocol that has little to do with muds.
: > The telnet application (actually, there are a billion telnet
: > applications) implement that protocol in a very simplistic format.
: > The telnet protocol has nothing to do with my objections. I object to
: > promoting the telnet application as an interface to mudding.
:
: No, your mixing the issues. You say users won't use telnet because it is
: too complicated to use. Users can care less about *HOW* the protocal
: works, just that the interface is simple enough for them to use. And since
: telnet apps are the interface that user must deal with, you thusly made the
: statement that telnet apps are too compicated for the general user.
I did not say the protocol had anything to do with that difficulty.
: Now you say that those same apps implement the protocal in a simple format,
: implying that telnet apps are simple enough for the general user. I could
: not have put you in a nicer little box if I planned it.
Because the implement it in a simple format does not mean that a
simple format is simple to use.
The web is not a simple format, but it is simple to use.
Do you understand the difference?
: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
It makes it fairly useless.
--
Frogger
Once again my news server is behind... sorry!
For those of you just joining this thread, the Telnet NOW! campaign is
something which I have started up to promote Telnet applications on the
internet (http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/telnow.html)
I wrote:
: Well, from the replies have so far George, that's a considerable number of
: ppl who need to wake up. The web isn't the interface to the internet,
: it's merely an application of the internet. It's not even a particularly
: good one as (without the add of plugins, java, cgi etc.) it's a one-way
: system (ie u read what someone else has put)... the Internet is a
: communications tool, not just an on-line magazine (although that too has a
: purpose).
George replied:
: That's like saying, without the wheels, a car is not a very good mode
: of transportation. Plugins, Java, and CGI are the ways in which the
: web is made dynamic. You cannot exclude them and declare the web not
: to be dynamic.
Not really, as all cars come with wheels, not all web browsers come with
java support, a collection of plugins, etc etc... Even if they do, the
"web" is still very slow at its job. Most "web talkers" that I've seen
require u too refresh every time u want an update, not exactly dynamic
(IMHO)
George also wrote:
: I think better time would be spent building a better interface
: into mud games. What is telnet really good for?
: * Access to UNIX servers. Web users ignorant of telnet clearly have
: little need for this
Well that depends, system admin might have trouble booting their web
servers without some kind of telnet/cli interface.
: * Poor access to a mud. Would it not be better to empower people with
: good interfaces to muds instead of encouraging them to use poor ones?
I don't agree that telnet is a poor way to access a mud, which is the
whole point of my campaign, to let ppl know the options and let them make
up their own minds...
: Telnet can be done through the web. It has been done (just damn
: poorly). Telnet is the worst way to play a mud.
Poor access to a mud... hmm well that depends on how the mud is written
right? I've seen systems that include a "mud client" interface in their
code so everyone can use it. That goes for talkers and BBSs too....
BTW: Most "mud clients" *are* simply telnet programs with a different
interface, I should know seeing as I've written one.
: What use does telnet have to 95% of the Internet population?
Well to everyone on the Internet (not just 95%) telnet programs gives them
access to MUDs, talkers, BBS systems, the web (via lynx) ... urm come to
think of it, everything the net has to offer. There are ppl out there who
only access the net via text terminals you know. And no, that doesn't
mean they have to use UNIX either!
: I know what most people are using. It is what I do for a living. And
: it rarely requires telnet.
Erm, right. My job required me to use a telnet to an AS/400 machine. Just
beacuse *you* don't use it, doesn't mean that others don't.
: Telnet is not at all in wide use :) That is what this thread is
: about... resurrecting a dead animal.
This thread is about making new net users realise there is more to the net
than just the web.
In all the Universities I have visited, the students and the staff use
telnet regularly. Everyone I've introduced to telnet now use it more than
the web. The people I work with still use telnet to hook up to an
AS/400 instead of the graphical interface that they all have access to.
There are now hundreds of talkers, muds and BBSs on the internet with the
numbers increasing daily. Hardly "a dead animal".
The only reason why this campaign exists is to make the net newbies
realise these services exists, because if we don't do it no one else will.
We just don't have the commercial power of the web, that certainly doesn't
mean we should just throw it away.
Why shouldn't we promote Telnet? Just because you don't like it?
Rob
(IMPORTANT Those of you who have posted to this thread, please email me as
I would like to use some of your comments on the campaign page)
---
Addicted - http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/~addicted/
Lee & Herring WWW Page - http://mudhole.ehche.ac.uk/fist/
NB: Any junk email received at my address will be returned along with several
copies of the unix source code or some other such junk..YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED!
Walter Goodwin
In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
>Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
>
>Because the implement it in a simple format does not mean that a
>simple format is simple to use.
>
>The web is not a simple format, but it is simple to use.
>
>Do you understand the difference?
no, could you explain to me why the telnet application is
not simple to use? I simply type "telnet nolta.nowhere.special.org <optional
port number>" and poof, there I go. Admittedly, I'm clueless as
to how TCP, IP, UDP, and ssh (secured shell right? I think I remember
hearing about this one) work, hell, I don't know the difference
between bash, csh, or a lot of other sh's, yet I use telnet every
day. The only "complicated" thing I run into, is that the other system
is most likely running some form of unix, and I'd have to know the
commands :)
BTW, if the web is so simple to use, could you help me out with
a small problem? How can you anonymously upload a file to a ftp
site? ie. I have a cool duke nukem level/code patch/bug report
and I need/want to upload it to a site for everyone to see.
Doooooh, almost forgot, I'm running win3.11, with netscape
navigator, I know how to do it using obselete programs like
terminal and kermit, but I have no clue how to do it with navigator,
(or is that something they'll do in the future?) (And yes, I
know this isn't even in the same ballpark as Adminning muds,
and is hopefully offtopic, but I was just curious :)
>
>: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
>: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
>
>It makes it fairly useless.
>
How? If I don't need/want the frills, whats the point to having them?
They're a waste of resources if not used.
Joe Sunday
<SNIP>
Aside from the arguing over the distinction between what is and isn't
telnet, Muds have a few things no-one has seemed to bring up yet. First,
part of the lure of muds is it's text interface. It's like reading a
book. You don't have to accept the picture as the designer made it, you
can envision it in YOUR mind and see things completely different than
the next player. Just because movies came out doesn't mean people
stopped reading books. (Although, it is a sad trend for a good portion
of the population, but I'll stop there.) I like text muds because it
requires you to think. Clicking on a picture tends to lose some of the
joy. Plus, it's harder to draw a picture for each of 1,000+ rooms and
items and players and mobs, well you get the point.
Joe
Frogger
G:
: Only lynx does not come with Java support. BFD. Lynx people are
: inclined to know about telnet anyways :)
Actually, I wasn't only referring to browsers which don't support Java
currently, but I was also referring to old version of Netscape and IE...
Java doesn't run on a lot of systems anyway...
Lynx is a text system, Java (applets) are graphical programs so naturally
Lynx can't support them. Ppl don't use Lynx for Java, they use it for
speed.
:: Well that depends, system admin might have trouble booting their web
:: servers without some kind of telnet/cli interface.
:
: They should be using ssh unless they like giving out their admin
: password.
Yes, if they've done something stupid enough to annoy someone so much they
need to take such measures. (eg flaming a newsgroup)
I was actually pointing out that "outdated interfaces" are still used
regularly by system admin. You said yourself (and I quote)
: What is telnet really good for?
: * Access to UNIX servers. Web users ignorant of telnet clearly have
: little need for this
Web users ignorant of telnet dont need access to UNIX. But they might
want a way to connect to muds, bbss, talkers etc...
: My point is that the effort is better spent making it easier for
: people to use muds... Not draw them into an outdated way of doing so.
OK, how exactly is telnet difficult to use?? I don't see how the age of
the system is related to it's difficulty... Telnet is very easy, this
campaign is to make new users aware of it. It doesn't need an indepth
explaination, you type an address and go.
How easy do u want it to be?? Most mudclients need quite a bit of setting
up... telnet applications don't.
: : : Telnet can be done through the web. It has been done (just damn
: : : poorly). Telnet is the worst way to play a mud.
: :
: : Poor access to a mud... hmm well that depends on how the mud is written
: : right? I've seen systems that include a "mud client" interface in their
: : code so everyone can use it. That goes for talkers and BBSs too....
:
: That is certainly very bad mud design.
How can that be bad mud design?? Oh I see..... your thinking it stops ppl
using mudclients etc right?? Sorry, I should of mentioned that it's an
option...
Or am I missing your point?
Btw: how is your protocol for your mud clients going to work exactly? Go
on, give us a hint...
: Those people already know about telnet because their life is so
: limited that that is all they can do.
Great, now we know your iq level George... People who already know about
telnet have limited lives? Right, well that must include you surely
seeing as you've been going on about it so much...
:: Erm, right. My job required me to use a telnet to an AS/400 machine. Just
:: beacuse *you* don't use it, doesn't mean that others don't.
:
: Telnet is not the best way to do that. ssh is.
Never said it was the best. Just pointing out that ppl do use it. A lot.
Maybe someone hasn't told them what ssh is.... why don't you start a "Ssh
Now!" Campaign?
: I actually have developed in a lot of environments.
Which ones exactly?
: Yes, I have used
: telnet (before ssh was big). Still, what I do is not what 99% of the
: people on the net are doing. Remember your target audience. I am not
: it.
I know your not our target audience, I was explaining why you were wrong
to assume people don't use telnet anymore. I don't believe your
experience of the Internet is as broad as you clearly think. Quite a few
people seem to agree with me.
What exactly do you do on the internet that makes you so unique?
:: This thread is about making new net users realise there is more to the net
:: than just the web.
:
: The web should be able to incorporate those things. And allowing the
: web to do so will attract many more neophytes than espousing a style
: of technology that these people generally shun.
Maybe the web should be able to do these things. It can't. A graphical
interface can never do everything you want it to.
:: In all the Universities I have visited, the students and the staff use
:: telnet regularly. Everyone I've introduced to telnet now use it more than
:: the web.
:
: I seriously find this hard to believe.
Funny, I find a lot of what you say seriously hard to believe as well....
My talker system has over 500 ppl using it (and we've only been going a
year or so)... most of them don't use clients other than telnet. I can
give you the addresses of a few hundred other systems (of varying sizes)
where the same is true....
In a recent poll carried out on my talker all of the users
particpating said they used telnet applications more than the web...
Sorry if u have trouble believing that, but it's the truth.
:: The people I work with still use telnet to hook up to an
:: AS/400 instead of the graphical interface that they all have access to.
:: There are now hundreds of talkers, muds and BBSs on the internet with the
:: numbers increasing daily. Hardly "a dead animal".
:
: Well, I certainly cannot explain this isolated phenomenon.
They prefered using telnet because of the speed it gave them... I know
several companies where the situation is the same as I had to help produce
the software for them.
How can you describe hundereds of talkers/muds/bbs as an "isolated
phenomenon"?
:: The only reason why this campaign exists is to make the net newbies
:: realise these services exists, because if we don't do it no one else
::will.
::
:: We just don't have the commercial power of the web, that certainly
::doesn't mean we should just throw it away.
::
:: Why shouldn't we promote Telnet? Just because you don't like it?
:
: No. The goal, I assume, is to attract more people to mudding.
Wrong. The goal is to promote all applications of telnet. To make users
more aware of what the internet has to offer.
: I agree with that goal. I am of the opinion that you are wasting time
: promoting telnet when it would be more fruitful to enable mud access
: from the web.
How exactly is access a Mud from the web "better" than accessing it via a
telnet package?? In what way does an intergrated interface improve
things? Telnet isn't that confusing.
: The best way to do this, IMHO, is to develop a mud
: client protocol that mud servers can implement and all clients can be
: written to.
I don't agree. That means you restrict your users to going through your
client on the web (presumably)... at least now they have the choice of
both telnet and web telnet clients (which are being improved all the time)
Why do you think your opinion is the right one? I'm not saying my is, but
at least I'm giving ppl the choice to make up there own mind without
attacking everything they say.
Rob S
shadow
George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: The telnet application (actually, there are a billion telnet
: applications) implement that protocol in a very simplistic format.
yes, most telnet clients only implement the smallest common whatevere, but
that exactly ist the point, whats so nice about it.
since there are 'billions' of applications i will have a telnet appclication
at hand for almost any hardware or os.
it is true, that a lot of things in muding can be made easier with a
mudclient. but as long as there is no other client available to all
platforms. my favorite all purpose client will be telnet.
brgds
shadow
Seggallion
*CHEER GEORGE REESE!*
I hate it when ppl like that Mark Stanford guy preach about something
that they can't even grasp. (maybe thats not the best way to put
it.)(maybe I should be saying: I hate it when ppl like Mark Stanford
preach about things when they don't quite have their facts right.)
-=-==SEGGALLION==-=-
The Lord of the Dance.
Anthony J. Biacco
Frogger (fro...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
:
: Never said it was the best. Just pointing out that ppl do use it. A lot.
: Maybe someone hasn't told them what ssh is.... why don't you start a "Ssh
: Now!" Campaign?
:
until 2 days ago, i never heard of ssh before. That's how popular it is.
*insert sarcasm here*
I cna't name one admin that i know that uses ssh to login to a system
over telnet.
: :: In all the Universities I have visited, the students and the staff use
: :: telnet regularly. Everyone I've introduced to telnet now use it more than
: :: the web.
: :
: : I seriously find this hard to believe.
:
: Funny, I find a lot of what you say seriously hard to believe as well....
:
: My talker system has over 500 ppl using it (and we've only been going a
: year or so)... most of them don't use clients other than telnet. I can
: give you the addresses of a few hundred other systems (of varying sizes)
: where the same is true....
:
I concur, i run a talker and my users says the same thing. Telnet.
Some run clients, and 90% of those say they can't find a good client to
use, so they just use telnet.
-Cygnus
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Anthony J. Biacco
System Programmer/Network Engineer "It's better to burn out,
than to fade away" -Kurt Cobain
cyg...@misty.com
dark...@mail.microserve.net
http://www.intermarket.net/~cygnus/cygnus.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Lowe
On 11 Jan 1997 13:33:13 GMT, "Jon A. Lambert" <jlsy...@ix.netcom.com>
wrote:
>Mark Stanford <kim...@inetworld.net> wrote in article
><kimmar-1001...@dialin117.inetworld.net>...
>> In article <5b6rm1$g...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
>>
>>
>> > FTP, HTTP, and telnet are VERY different
>> > socket protocols. UNIX is an operating system. FTP, HTTP, and telnet
>> > have absolutely nothing to do with UNIX.
>>
>> They are quite different, but they have everything to do with UNIX. FTP and telnet are UNIX
>programs. If you care to attempt to contradict this, you will fail, because they _are_ UNIX
>programs, though other platforms can emulate them.
>
sorry, I have to say that you're wrong. FTP and telnet aren't UNIX
programs, but they are considered to be because UNIX was the first
operating system (type) to include them as part of the standard
package. Other platforms *don't* "emulate" them - they use these
protocols, just as UNIX does.
just my, er, two pence.
Tim Steinke
I'm appalled by reading over what i just read.
I hope George Reese didn't have to much trouble typing his flames. I mean I
know George, you have to TYPE the message out WITHOUT using a mouse or
netscape! *gasp*
Telnet is dynamic information exchange. When you browse the web using ie or
netscape, you are telneting in a sense. Without telnet, there is no internet.
Without telnet, there is no dialing up on your slip provider and browsing
playboy pages or whatever you like to do. Telnet is faster, more efficient,
and if people wern't so lazy they could learn to use it. Telnet is not hard.
You can't be be afraid of text. Mud clients should be kept on the shelf. Telix
is the way to go. And i take my hat off to Frogger for doing what he is doing,
and I credit every single person out there who uses telnet. I frown at George
Reese for raising a rukus where he obviously doesn't know what he's talking
about.
(3*)Give it up for telnet.
-Darren (REPLY TO gri...@bitsmart.com)
Mark Stanford
In article <5b72ik$m...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
> Simon Miller (mil...@inferno.cs.bris.ac.uk) wrote:
> :
> : Telnet is NOT dead technology. It may not be hip, it may not be trendy,
> : it may not be cyberkewl (or whatever you want to call it) and it may
> : require the user to have half a brain -- but it's not dead.
>
> What use does telnet have to 95% of the Internet population?
One could say the same about the web. There are many useful databases which can only be accessed by telnetting. One can only access UNIX servers by telnetting. Seeing as UNIX makes up 75% of the servers on the Internet, I think that constitutes a need.
> : Only last year I introcued Ethernet and Telnet to a network which had
> : previously relied upon terrible slow serial links. Yes, we're talking
> : mainframes -- they do still exist. For that network, Telnet was NEW
> : technology and users were falling over each other to get their hands on it.
>
> This is certainly a non-standard situation.
Is it really? How do you define non-standard? Apparently it's anything YOU haven't personally encountered.
> : I've posted before about the danger of assuming that everybody is using
> : Windows. They aren't.
>
> I know what most people are using. It is what I do for a living. And
> it rarely requires telnet.
So you've worked with at least 51% of the Internet population. That's not possible! There are over 40 million people on the Internet.
Oops, I forgot, the Great Reese is omnipresent.
> : > The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
> : > old command line interfaces need to wake up.
> :
> : You sound like an advertisement for Microsoft Internet Explorer.
>
> I won't touch the thing.
That seems to be your response to anything you don't like: "Irrelevant." "I won't touch the thing." etc...
> : The Web
> : is not *the* interface to the Internet: it is *an* interface to the
> : Internet. It is also rapidly becoming a proprietary system as Netscape,
> : Sun and Microsoft fall over each other to introduce new features while
> : the WWW Consortium looks on and weeps...
>
> How can a system that enables access to all the various Internet
> protocols be called proprietary? I am not buying into Microsoft
> bullshit. I am buying into common sense. Common sense says that
> whatever technology can enable accountants and garabage men to use the
> Internet is the kind of technology we need for the Internet. Telnet
> is not that animal.
Why? Because you don't like it?
Common sense gave up on you a long time ago, George.
> : I'm all for the web -- but to write off the Telnet protocol while it is
> : still in wide use and while for many people, running Netscape is a
> : significant and unnecessary waste of rescources (or perhaps not
> : possible), is a very foolish thing to do.
>
> Telnet is not at all in wide use :) That is what this thread is
> about... resurrecting a dead animal.
Wide use of course being defined by what you have personally encountered.
Because you ARE God, aren't you George?
Well aren't you?
--
+ Mark Stanford -- Karzan -- kim...@inetworld.net +
___ ___ _______ _______ _______ _______ ______
( Y ) _ Y _ \Y _ Y _ Y _ \
| l /| l | l /l___| | l | | |
| _ \| _ | _ l / ___/| _ | | |
| | | | | | || l Y| | | | |
l___| l___| l___| |l_______l___| l___| l
`---' `---' `---' `---' `---'
Mark Stanford
>[Snip of some of Mr. Reese's wonderful genius.]
It seems, Mr. Reese, that you are the only person in this thread who dislikes telnet. It seems that you have not one shred of evidence either that anyone other than yourself dislikes telnet or that it is bad or outdated. Instead of evidence, you make inane excuses for the lack thereof like "It's what I do for a living." You see, part of functioning in society is realising that the universe does not circle around your head. You have assumed that most of the Internet dislikes telnet, and that it is obsolete, because these are your opinions. There is NO fact whatsoever to back this up. The intelligent thing to do would be to not make sweeping, broad, ridiculous statements about people the opinions of which you can have no idea of. Stop filling up the newsgroup with your brainless postings, and start realising that there IS a world outside that ego of yours.
Where's your credibility now? I suppose you could try to regain it by quoting this entire message and adding "Irrelevant." to the end...
da...@xs4all.nl
In <5b8k6a$6...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
>: Why most windows based telnet apps fail is because of poor design of the
>: app and not the telnet protocal itself. It is a shame that the best telnet
>: apps are mud clients.
>Mud clients are not telnet apps.
They are if they use telnet option processing (to figure out when to
suppress echoing), and telnet end-of-line conventions. There's not much
more to the telnet protocol that isn't optional.
>: Can you give example of why the basic transmitting and reciving of data is
>: outdated?
>That is called IP. There are several low level protocols built on top
>of IP. The most common are TCP and UDP. On top of those low level
>protocols are several high level protocols. Among the high level
>protocols are HTTP, FTP, and telnet.
>Mud clients tend not to use a high level protocol. They tend to use
>straight TCP/IP.
Now _you_ are confusing levels. Mud clients use straight TCP/IP; so
do telnet clients. That's how they implement their protocol. Mud
clients usually implement a stripped-down telnet protocol.
--
Richard Braakman
Lars Duening
In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:>
>: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
>: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
>
>It makes it fairly useless.
I forgot to ask: what _is_ your vision of a mudclient/mudprotocol?
What would it do better than telnet, and how?
--
Lars Duening; due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
George Reese
Another person who thinks everything is telnet.
Joy.
Tim Steinke (ddh...@direct.ca) wrote:
: I'm appalled by reading over what i just read.
: I hope George Reese didn't have to much trouble typing his flames. I mean I
: know George, you have to TYPE the message out WITHOUT using a mouse or
: netscape! *gasp*
Ugh, get a clue. I am a developer. My job is to make using the
computer easier for other people. Because I want to do that for
others does not mean I am clueless about how they work.
: Telnet is dynamic information exchange.
Let's repeat this for the 15th time...
There are two things that go by the name of telnet.
#1 The telnet protocol
The telnet protocol is an data exchange protocol written on top of the
TCP protocol which is written on top of the IP protocol.
#2 The many telnet applications
There are a ton of these, mostly written very badly. It is this part
I am rallying against. Or more properly, I am arguing against
supporting it as the means for accessing muds.
: When you browse the web using ie or
: netscape, you are telneting in a sense. Without telnet, there is no
: internet.
Shyeah! And monkeys might fly out of my butt!
Telnet has absolutely nothing to do with Netscape or IE. They use
many protocols, primarily HTTP and HTTPS which are both protocols,
like telnet, written on top of TCP.
: Without telnet, there is no dialing up on your slip provider and browsing
: playboy pages or whatever you like to do.
Bullshit. I don't use telnet at all. I use xterms, mud clients, and
Netscape for my internet connectivity. From my UNIX shell, I use ssh
for UNIX-UNIX connectivity.
: Telnet is faster, more efficient,
: and if people wern't so lazy they could learn to use it. Telnet is
: not hard.
Not in any meaningful way. Especially with the crap being pawned off
as Windows telnet clients.
: You can't be be afraid of text. Mud clients should be kept on the shelf. Telix
: is the way to go. And i take my hat off to Frogger for doing what he is doing,
: and I credit every single person out there who uses telnet. I frown at George
: Reese for raising a rukus where he obviously doesn't know what he's talking
: about.
I don't know about what I do for a living? Better let my employers know.
George Reese
da...@xs4all.nl wrote:
: In <5b8k6a$6...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
: >: Why most windows based telnet apps fail is because of poor design of the
: >: app and not the telnet protocal itself. It is a shame that the best telnet
: >: apps are mud clients.
:
: >Mud clients are not telnet apps.
:
: suppress echoing), and telnet end-of-line conventions. There's not much
: more to the telnet protocol that isn't optional.
:
: >: outdated?
:
: >That is called IP. There are several low level protocols built on top
: >of IP. The most common are TCP and UDP. On top of those low level
: >protocols are several high level protocols. Among the high level
: >protocols are HTTP, FTP, and telnet.
:
: >Mud clients tend not to use a high level protocol. They tend to use
: >straight TCP/IP.
:
: do telnet clients. That's how they implement their protocol. Mud
: clients usually implement a stripped-down telnet protocol.
Telnet is a protocol built on top of TCP/IP. Using raw TCP/IP means
you do not use any protocol on top of that. I have encountered many
mud clients that do not implement the basic subset of telnet you
outlined above. They generally can get away with this since muds
rarely supress echoing and client place input in a separate window.
George Reese
Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: In article <5b72ik$m...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
: > : Only last year I introcued Ethernet and Telnet to a network which had
: > : mainframes -- they do still exist. For that network, Telnet was NEW
: > : technology and users were falling over each other to get their hands on it.
: >
: > This is certainly a non-standard situation.
:
: Is it really? How do you define non-standard? Apparently it's anything YOU haven't personally encountered.
Well, I do Internet development for a living. It is part of my job to
understand exactly how people are using it.
About 0% of the Internet population needs to access AS/400 directly.
: > : I've posted before about the danger of assuming that everybody is using
: > : Windows. They aren't.
: >
: > I know what most people are using. It is what I do for a living. And
: > it rarely requires telnet.
:
: So you've worked with at least 51% of the Internet population. That's not possible! There are over 40 million people on the Internet.
:
: Oops, I forgot, the Great Reese is omnipresent.
I don't need to be omnipresent. I just need to be in the business.
: > : > The web is the Interface to the Internet. People dealing with obscure
: > : > old command line interfaces need to wake up.
: > :
: > : You sound like an advertisement for Microsoft Internet Explorer.
: >
: > I won't touch the thing.
:
: That seems to be your response to anything you don't like:
: "Irrelevant." "I won't touch the thing." etc...
*boggle*
That would be my response to the above comment. You said I sound like
an IE advertisement. I do not use that product. What the hell else
am I supposed to say?
: > : The Web
: > : is not *the* interface to the Internet: it is *an* interface to the
: > : Internet. It is also rapidly becoming a proprietary system as Netscape,
: > : Sun and Microsoft fall over each other to introduce new features while
: > : the WWW Consortium looks on and weeps...
: >
: > How can a system that enables access to all the various Internet
: > protocols be called proprietary? I am not buying into Microsoft
: > bullshit. I am buying into common sense. Common sense says that
: > whatever technology can enable accountants and garabage men to use the
: > Internet is the kind of technology we need for the Internet. Telnet
: > is not that animal.
:
: Why? Because you don't like it?
No. I *personally* have no preference one way or the other.
Given, however, the following:
* I work hard to make computing easier for others
* In 6 years of mud administration, I have found telnet a barrier to
getting people to access my mud, not an asset (even before there was
a web)
I do not think it is the best way to enable newcomers to access muds.
:
: > : I'm all for the web -- but to write off the Telnet protocol while it is
: > : still in wide use and while for many people, running Netscape is a
: > : significant and unnecessary waste of rescources (or perhaps not
: > : possible), is a very foolish thing to do.
: >
: > Telnet is not at all in wide use :) That is what this thread is
: > about... resurrecting a dead animal.
:
: Wide use of course being defined by what you have personally encountered.
Defined by common sense. Why do you think they call the browser the
killer app for the web? Cause everyone is off using telnet?
: Because you ARE God, aren't you George?
No, but at least I have some idea of what I am talking about.
George Reese
Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: >[Snip of some of Mr. Reese's wonderful genius.]
:
: It seems, Mr. Reese, that you are the only person in this thread who dislikes telnet. It seems that you have not one shred of evidence either that anyone other than yourself dislikes telnet or that it is bad or outdated. Instead of evidence, you make inane excuses for the lack thereof like "It's what I do for a living." You see, part of functioning in society is realising that the universe does not circle around your head. You have assumed that most of the Internet dislikes telnet, and that it is o
bsolete, because these are your opinions. There is NO fact whatsoever to back this up. The intelligent thing to do would be to not make sweeping, broad, ridiculous statements about people the opinions of which you can have no idea of. Stop filling up the newsgroup with your brainless postings, and start realising that there IS a world outside that ego of yours.
:
: Where's your credibility now? I suppose you could try to regain it by quoting this entire message and adding "Irrelevant." to the end...
Your stupidity has no bounds.
Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
the same in the face of this Internet growth?
One reason: archaic user interface
George Reese
Lars Duening (due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de) wrote:
: In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:>
: >: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
: >: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
: >
: >It makes it fairly useless.
:
: I forgot to ask: what _is_ your vision of a mudclient/mudprotocol?
: What would it do better than telnet, and how?
Well, first off, keep in mind that most of my rants have been against
telnet as a client, not as a protocol.
My primary vision is that people are able to access a mud simply by
clicking on a link. Now, we all know that most web browsers support
the telnet://host:port URL. Unfortunately, we also know, this does
not work out of the box. And the work required to get people just to
get it to work on a single click provides enough of a barrier to them
getting online to begin with. Those that do go through the work more
often than not do so using the generic telnet client that comes with
Windows or a Mac. Playing a mud through those telnet clients is
enough to make anyone think muds suck, no matter how good the mud in
question is.
Therefore, a good mud interface:
* requires zero installation
* it should be accessible through a web browser
* organized I/O such that the new user is not overloaded with data
(especially not with it messing up their user input)
That just basically addresses client issues, not protocol issues.
Telnet (the protocol) would work fine for the above. However, I think
it would be well worth it to define a protocol that allows mud clients
to get more information about the mud.
Jon A. Lambert
Lars Duening <due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de> wrote in article <5bcbuo$6...@ra.ibr.cs.tu-bs.de>...
> In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
> >Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:>
> [...]
> >: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
> >: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
> >
> >It makes it fairly useless.
>
> I forgot to ask: what _is_ your vision of a mudclient/mudprotocol?
^^^^^^^^^^^^ This by far is the most constructive question I've seen
on this thread. For muds wanting more client side control than ANSI
or VT100 this is a big question.
A possible standard that has existed for many years is something called
RIP that ye'all flamed earlier because the company promoting it had a pay
client for Windows. Regardless of this company's ability to intelligently market
their product, has anyone actually looked at the RIP protocol besides me
which is AFIK freely available but for which no other INet clients exist yet.
And YES, this could be a possible protocol for a browser client written in Java
to use in communicating with a mud as well as a standalone app.
It has the advantage of being standardized like VT100 and the advantage
that clients not yet using the protocol wouldn't see any differences in what
they used to seeing (ala client/server negotiation).
Or does anyone have any other suggestions as to what would be a
better protocol to use?
> What would it do better than telnet, and how?
> Lars Duening; due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de
>
Mark Stanford
In article <01bbfffc$4490c380$875e4781@carlosmy>, "Carlos L. Myers" <fa...@citynet.net> wrote:
> P.S. I am making this my last post on the subject. Arguing with Mr. Reese
> is like arging with a wall about why it needs a doorway so that you can get
> to the other side.
Sounds like a good idea. Making this my last post, I'll just make a quick conclusion.
It's quite obvious that we've all agreed (except for Mr. Reese) to the fact that telnet is useful, not obsolete, and a very nice thing. The Telnet NOW! campaign is a great idea, because new users of the Internet are afraid of anything which isn't graphical. If they can be exposed to text and command lines, they can learn to use them and get to experience more of the Internet than just the static stuff on the web.
Anyway, excellent idea. I doubt it was meant to spurr this on :)
Mark Stanford
> Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
>
> But you ignored the point I was making. That is that your statement
> basically says that everyone should know how to use a UNIX command
> line in order to play a mud!
How hard is it to type telnet <address> <port>? If you want to connect to a MUD, you'll obviously know what the address and port are.
Is it so hard to type T-E-L-N-E-T?
> Please explain what exactly I am ignorant about? You seem to imply
> that I am ignorant because I want computers to be easy to use. That
> is the position of a total elitist.
I do not neccesarily consider you ignorant... but ease of use does not make things superiour in any way. It is nice to be easy, but not if you have to sacrifice speed and efficiency by using it through a web browser, etc. Telnet is the cleanest, easiest thing for anyone to use.
> : But of course, you are more credible, and no doubt use more of your brain, so who am I to question the great Reese?
>
> Well, not someone to question me on this subject. You are very
> ignorant on this topic.
Absolutely. In this area, my brain is just an empty void.
Mark Stanford
> Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
> : >[Snip of some of Mr. Reese's wonderful genius.]
> [snip of my stuff]
>
> Your stupidity has no bounds.
That it does not. I bow to your superiour intellect.
> Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
> Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
> epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
> the same in the face of this Internet growth?
Because for the most part, new users have not been exposed to telnetting and how to do it. Hence the Telnet NOW! campaign.
> One reason: archaic user interface
Wrong. People can learn pretty fast. You seem to have a knack for underestimating the intelligence of others. Oh, and for the reason: see above.
da...@xs4all.nl
In <5bcgah$h...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Lars Duening (due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de) wrote:
>: In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>: >Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:>
>: [...]
>: >: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
>: >: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
>: >
>: >It makes it fairly useless.
>:
>: I forgot to ask: what _is_ your vision of a mudclient/mudprotocol?
>: What would it do better than telnet, and how?
>Well, first off, keep in mind that most of my rants have been against
>telnet as a client, not as a protocol.
I think you should have made this clear at the start.
It seems that all your objections could be met by a good Java telnet
applet. It would not surprise me if one already exists.
>My primary vision is that people are able to access a mud simply by
>clicking on a link. [...]
> Those that do go through the work more
>often than not do so using the generic telnet client that comes with
>Windows or a Mac.
"Click here to install a good telnet client."
I assume that the Telnet NOW! campaign will have a web site somewhere.
Their goals would probably be well served if they included such a service
on that site.
>Therefore, a good mud interface:
>* requires zero installation
>* it should be accessible through a web browser
>* organized I/O such that the new user is not overloaded with data
> (especially not with it messing up their user input)
A telnet client can provide a separate input window when (and only when!)
the connection is in line-by-line mode. This would be an improvement
over current telnet clients, and probably well worth it for the few
servers (such as muds) that still use line-by-line mode.
I don't see what else a client could do to reduce data overload; this
seems more a function of the mud, which should provide a gentle
introduction for new players.
>That just basically addresses client issues, not protocol issues.
>Telnet (the protocol) would work fine for the above. However, I think
>it would be well worth it to define a protocol that allows mud clients
>to get more information about the mud.
I don't think this will be useful unless you can get mud client writers
to adhere to the protocol. They're having plenty of difficulty with
the telnet protocol right now.
--
Richard Braakman
Mike Harrold
George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: My primary vision is that people are able to access a mud simply by
: clicking on a link.
Your vision, and certainly not mine or a lot of other peoples. For one, using
a mouse is really a pain in the ass. Why? Because as a developer, I have my
fingers on the keyboard 99% of the time; having to remove one hand from the
keyboard and to use a mouse is downright annoying ;)
Your idea is sound, but only if you're going to implement an entire point
and click interface to the MUD itself, which the MUD development community
is nowhere near ready for. (Actually, I would be if I was being PAID for my
work, but then like everyone else, I do it for FUN, not as a business).
/Miko
--
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Take the cheese to sickbay, the Doctor should take a look at it as soon |
| as possible. -- B'lanna Torres - Star Trek Voyager - 'Learning Curve'. |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------+
George Reese
Marcus =?ISO-8859-1?Q?Mei=DFner?= (msme...@cip.informatik.uni-erlangen.de) wrote:
: Well, a Java Applet would be perfect for the task then. Why not write one?
: Oh, wait! There are _ALREADY_ _FREE_ Telnet Applets! Check:
:
: <URL:http://www.first.gmd.de/persons/leo/java/Telnet/>
:
: for a telnet applet Matthias Jugel and I wrote. As much VT320 able as we
: could get it (no different fontsize, no downloadable fonts though).
As I said, I am not opposed to a web client supporting the telnet
protocol. However, in this case, that telnet applet, last I checked,
was god awful for connecting to muds with.
Boneist
I would just like to add my two penn'orth in here.
I don't MUD, but the few times I have been to visit a MUD seem little
different from the times that I go on talkers and bbs's. I used telnet. It
works, and it's a hell of a lot faster than using the Web is. I've been on
web based chat-systems, and they are just so slow in comparison to using
telnet to go to a talker/bbs/mud.
Mr George Borg insisted that telnet was outdated and implied that anyone
who was using it was out-of-date and stupid for still using it.
I attend Bangor University (N.Wales) where the majority of machines are
P.C.'s. Not only are they P.C.'s but P.C.'s that boot up in DOS. So we log
into DOS. There are two ways to read our mail from there:
a) login to windows, which takes ages to boot, and use either a version of
a mail program that they have there, or use telnet to telnet to our main
server to get our mail there.
or
b) telnet directly from DOS to our main server. This option is very much
quicker than the other option.
Telnet is still very much alive in our university. 99.9% of the students
here in Bangor have used telnet in one form or another to access their
mail, or to run a program that only exists on the UNIX server....
Bangor is of course, I forget, outdated. Despite the fact that we are now
obtaining more win95 machines (which are incredibly awkward to use), and
also have UNIX workstations, we will always be condemned in the eyes of Mr
George 'you will be assimilated into the web' Borg.
I would like to ask Mr Borg just exactly how I am supposed to be able to
log into this mudhole.ehche.ac.uk account of mine from my Bangor uni
account without telnet? I mean, telnet is after all quite simple:
telnet mudhole.ehche.ac.uk usually gets me into this account with no
problems, and very quickly.
I'm sure that Bangor University is not alone in the fact that it has
machines which need telnet to connect the student to the net...
which therefore means it is *NOT* an isolated phenomenon...
Telnet (IMO) is a basic tool of the internet. I've not had anywhere near
the amount of problems using telnet than I have using the web and having
my web browser crash or go haywire on me.....
Whilst Mr George is entitled to his opinions, I do feel that he was a
little over the top in dismissing so out-of-hand an application of the
internet which does have it's various uses.
--
bye!
from
Boneist
=========================================================================
| Scientists have calculated that the chance of anything so patently |
| absurd actually existing are millions to one. |
| But magicians have calculated that million-to-one chances crop up nine |
| times out of ten. |
| (Terry Pratchett - Mort) |
=========================================================================
Frogger
Ok, I thought I'd try and kill this thread (some hope) by explaining why
the Telnet NOW! campaign exists... please remember these are my opinions
and whilst you may not agree with them, I am entitled to make then....
Over the past through years the Internet has gone through tremendous
growth. More and more people are turning to the 'net as a way of
communicating.
Many 'net magazines have come out, some good, some bad. The thing that
most of these magazines lack (and the media in general) is fair coverage
of the non-commerical side of the 'net. This means that (imho) many areas
of the internet are not being exposed to new users and in particular
telnet services (see that word there? SERVICES? S-E-R-V-I-C-E-S) This
means SERVICES (that word again, just so you don't get confused) that can
be accessed with telnet programs. This includes MUDs, Talkers and BBSs...
Now I *know* there are otherways to connect to MUDs ... I know some people
(not everyone!) think these ways are better than using telnet (eg mud
clients), however, the point of the campaign was too make new users aware
of the SERVICES (there it is again!) available and the easist way to cover
every service was to use the one type of client that can be used to access
ALL of them. ie TELNET (and yes you maybe able to use rlogin, ssh etc
but most new users won't know what they are until they've encountered
telnet. I've never seen a rlogin program other than the unix command.
I've seen it as an option on a telnet program, but this proves my point
that the user has to know about telnet first)....
Now you may not agree with this way of doing things, but there are a lot
of people who agree with me so the campaign will still continue. I don't
agree that telnet is out-dated, it's still as useful as it ever was and it
isn't half as unfriendly as some people like to make out. (Even setting
the software up is easier - it takes me longer to set up web browsing
software than my telnet software).
If I was trying to get new users aware of the services available by using
MUD clients they wouldn't be able to access half as many places as they
would using regular telnet. Most MUD clients work on the principle that
the service they are connecting to uses line mode, whereas this isn't
always the case (eg BBS systems). It wouldn't be fair to exclude such
systems from the campaign and also (as I said before) not everyone agrees
that mudclients are better than telnet for connecting to muds.
The point of this campaign (despite what some of you seem to think) was to
make new 'net users aware of the telnet services. The best way I thought
to achieve this was to try and create a web page where all the services
are listed which can be found with relative ease. I have no way of making
money out of this venture (being on .ac.uk prevents me from taking
sponsorship) I just wanted to try and generate interest in the way I
thought best.
I am sorry if you disagree with my methods, but that is the point of this
campaign and it is the way I thought best to tackle it.
If you have any constructive ideas on how to cover the same range of
services with the same availability of the software used, I would be
delighted to hear them.
George Reese
Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
: In article <5bcg06$h...@darla.visi.com>, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) wrote:
: > Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
: > Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
: > epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
: > the same in the face of this Internet growth?
:
: Because for the most part, new users have not been exposed to telnetting and how to do it. Hence the Telnet NOW! campaign.
They do not have to be educated... Telnet is accessible through a URL
link. People use that URL link... And then they hate what they see.
George Reese
da...@xs4all.nl wrote:
: In <5bcgah$h...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
:
: >Lars Duening (due...@ibr.cs.tu-bs.de) wrote:
: >: In article <5b8o3r$b...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >: >Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:>
: >: [...]
: >: >: Just because telnet is a no-thrills communications tool on the internet
: >: >: does not, in any way, make it obsolete.
: >: >
: >: >It makes it fairly useless.
: >:
: >: I forgot to ask: what _is_ your vision of a mudclient/mudprotocol?
: >: What would it do better than telnet, and how?
:
: >Well, first off, keep in mind that most of my rants have been against
: >telnet as a client, not as a protocol.
:
: I think you should have made this clear at the start.
I felt I did. Sorry if I did not.
: It seems that all your objections could be met by a good Java telnet
: applet. It would not surprise me if one already exists.
I agree a good Java telnet client would meet my objections. However,
I have never met a good telnet client, much less a Java one.
: >My primary vision is that people are able to access a mud simply by
: >clicking on a link. [...]
: > Those that do go through the work more
: >often than not do so using the generic telnet client that comes with
: >Windows or a Mac.
:
: "Click here to install a good telnet client."
:
: I assume that the Telnet NOW! campaign will have a web site somewhere.
: Their goals would probably be well served if they included such a service
: on that site.
Still requires installation. People generally do not want to download
and install foreign software just to try something out.
[ good ponts deleted ]
: >That just basically addresses client issues, not protocol issues.
: >Telnet (the protocol) would work fine for the above. However, I think
: >it would be well worth it to define a protocol that allows mud clients
: >to get more information about the mud.
:
: I don't think this will be useful unless you can get mud client writers
: to adhere to the protocol. They're having plenty of difficulty with
: the telnet protocol right now.
Part of the problem they cannot handle the telnet protocol is because
of its complexity... Remember, it is designed to allow a user on any
machine connect to any machine. There is so much it has to worry
about. A mud client protocol could be much, much simpler while at the
same time allowing clients to be more aware of the mud environment in
which they are operating.
Mike Harrold
George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
: Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
: epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
: the same in the face of this Internet growth?
: One reason: archaic user interface
Ehrm, where are your statistics to back up this very dodgy claim about
the mudding population being roughly the same as it was back then? As
someone (else) who has been around during all of that time, I disagree
totally. But then you are stuck in the LP world, and I am stuck in the
Diku world. Trust me, the number of people playing Dikus has *vastly*
increased in that time.
da...@xs4all.nl
In <5bdls6$j...@darla.visi.com> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>da...@xs4all.nl wrote:
>: "Click here to install a good telnet client."
>:
>: I assume that the Telnet NOW! campaign will have a web site somewhere.
>: Their goals would probably be well served if they included such a service
>: on that site.
>Still requires installation. People generally do not want to download
>and install foreign software just to try something out.
If the problem is that
1. They're stuck with bad software, and
2. They don't want to install anything else, even if it's done with
just a mouse click,
then, well, they're stuck. They can either mud with bad software,
or go do something else. I don't think Java mud applets (telnet
or otherwise) can help here -- I doubt the novice user can even
tell the difference, or cares enough to apply different principles
to them.
>Part of the problem they cannot handle the telnet protocol is because
>of its complexity... Remember, it is designed to allow a user on any
>machine connect to any machine. There is so much it has to worry
>about. A mud client protocol could be much, much simpler while at the
>same time allowing clients to be more aware of the mud environment in
>which they are operating.
It's not complex if you ignore all the options except ECHO :-)
Probably the hardest obstacle for most client authors is that
of knowing that a telnet standard exists, and where to find it.
I suspect that a mud client protocol that is flexible enough to be
generally applicable will need support for so many of the things
telnet supports that it will not be significantly less complex.
For example, how are you going to position your text unless there
is a way to negotiate about terminal types? (Unless you include
a complete terminal spec in the mud protocol -- which also adds
complexity).
We might have different ideas about this. A mud client protocol
could be very simple if defines a fixed set of features and
services -- but I think a protocol is doomed to fail if it is not
open-ended.
--
Richard Braakman
George Reese
Boneist (bon...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
: Mr George Borg insisted that telnet was outdated and implied that anyone
: who was using it was out-of-date and stupid for still using it.
I never said any such thing. I said it was out of date and that there
were better tools. Stick to the facts.
[ whining about an outdated computer setup deleted ]
: I would like to ask Mr Borg just exactly how I am supposed to be able to
: log into this mudhole.ehche.ac.uk account of mine from my Bangor uni
: account without telnet? I mean, telnet is after all quite simple:
You use telnet. That does not mean telnet is the best way for the
rest of the world to do it.
: I'm sure that Bangor University is not alone in the fact that it has
: machines which need telnet to connect the student to the net...
: which therefore means it is *NOT* an isolated phenomenon...
It is not nearly as common as the people who don't mud cause they
cannot get passed the telnet barrier.
Jay A. Carlson
In article <01bbff49$826e9000$8a5e4781@carlosmy>,
Carlos L. Myers <fa...@citynet.net> wrote:
> George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
> <5b4f4p$a...@darla.visi.com>...
>> Mud clients are the proper way to do muds anyways, not telnet. And
>> the proper mud client is web accessible.
> George, if you know anything about mud clients, you should know that they
> are nothing but a glorified telnet interface.
And mail's just a glorified interface for connecting to an SMTP port
and "more /var/mail/$USER".
Once you get past a certain point, it's misleading to claim a mud
client is just telnet. See
http://www.mitre.org/about/annual_report/technology.html for one
example.
--
Jay Carlson n...@kagoona.mitre.org n...@nop.com
The MITRE Corporation, Bedford MA
Flat text is just *never* what you want. ---stephen p spackman
Chris Turner
George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: Ainvar (ain...@enteract.com) wrote:
: : On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
[Snip]
: : > Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
: :
: : If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See
: : the quoted paragraph above).
: No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
: protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
: protocol.
Without the telnet protocol, the mud cannot find out information about what
requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
type" means.
Chris
--
ch...@cimio.co.uk #include <stddisclaimer.h> http://www.cimio.co.uk/~chris
"So this is really me? A no-style gimbo with teeth druids could use as a
place of worship" - Duaine Dibley (Red Dwarf - "Back to Reality")
Nathan Fenenga Yospe
On 14 Jan 1997 04:05:34 GMT, bo...@visi.com, claiming to be George Reese, posted to rec.games.mud.admin the following:
: Boneist (bon...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
: : I'm sure that Bangor University is not alone in the fact that it has
: : machines which need telnet to connect the student to the net...
: : which therefore means it is *NOT* an isolated phenomenon...
: It is not nearly as common as the people who don't mud cause they
: cannot get passed the telnet barrier.
On the other hand, I'd much rather have the kind of people who use telnet
on MY MUD than the type who use a browser. Just an opinion.
--
__ _ __ _ _ , , , ,
/_ / / ) /_ /_) / ) /| /| / /\ First Light of a Nova Dawn
/ / / \ /_ /_) / \ /-|/ |/ /_/ Final Night of a World Gone
Nathan F. Yospe - University of Hawaii Dept of Physics - yo...@hawaii.edu
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
>: Yup, why go for a nice clean interface when you can muddy things up with
>: PPP and slip overhead, not to mention eat up cpu time.
>Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
Why?
>Because using telnet does not reduce slip and ppp overhead anyways?
Given that George has done a fair amount of networking and Unix work
I think this proves that either he has been hired by his father-in-law
or this whole thread is a troll or (as is far too often the case in
the computer industry) he has no knowledge outside his niche.
bye
Robert
specify the e-mail address below, my reply-to: has anti-spam added to it
Mor...@physics.niu.edu
Real Men change diapers
David Rudy
In article h...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
>Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
>epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
>the same in the face of this Internet growth?
>
>One reason: archaic user interface
Time to post a little evidence contrary to Mr. Reese's beliefs.
My information comes from The Two Towers, a Tolkien LPMud. This was
done via on-line surveys which each player over level 2 was asked at
login time. This survey ran for 24 hours and 417 users answered.
Issue: survey1
To: all
Added on Mon Jan 13 16:50:28 1997
Q: This is a survey of Two Towers users. What type of computer do you most often
use to connect to the mud?
A1: PC (Votes: 310)
A2: Workstation (Sun, SGI, etc) (Votes: 32)
A3: Dumb Terminal (VTseries, Xterms) (Votes: 18)
A4: Macintosh (Votes: 53)
A5: Other, not listed. (Votes: 10)
Issue: survey2
To: all
Added on Mon Jan 13 16:54:32 1997
Q: This is a survey of Two Towers users. What type of program do you most often
use to connect to the mud?
A1: A Mud client program. (Votes: 178)
A2: telnet (Votes: 219)
A3: Web-based connection (ie, from the webpage) (Votes: 20)
A4: Other, not listed (Votes: 5)
Issue: survey3
To: all
Added on Mon Jan 13 17:30:26 1997
Q: This is a survey of Two Towers users. Is The Two Towers the first mud you have
ever played?
A1: Yes, my first mud. (Votes: 317)
A2: No, I was already familiar with mudding and muds (Votes: 100)
From this, I conclude: 3/4 of our players are new to mudding, and also 3/4 of
them are mudding from their PCs (as George correctly pointed out). However, the
majority (more than half) use basic telnet. A very small fraction (5%) use the
web to connect to the mud.
As for mud usage "not growing" during that period, CBS's "Up To The Minute"
broadcast on January 3rd 1997, in the "Digital Drive" section did a feature
about the Internet being used as a tribute to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
They mentioned The Two Towers LPMud, and described such multi-user games
as "the future of the net" (quote from the broadcast). If you would like
verification of this you can email ma...@uttm.com or can even call to get
a tape of the episode: 1-800-739-7979. They also have a webpage, but they
have not yet put the Jan 3rd episode online because of "technical difficulties"
as they have said.
Muds are "the future of the net", according to CBS news. And over half of
mudders (keep in mind that 3/4 of those surveyed were "new" to mudding) are
using telnet. This data from a mud which was founded in 1994. I think this
is enough to dispute Mr. Reese's claim that mud is roughly "the same" as it
was in 1992. Let's get the facts straight.
David Rudy
Aule@The Two Towers
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
Travis Casey
Chris Turner <chris@jaquart> wrote:
> George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
> : No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
> : protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
> : protocol.
>
> Without the telnet protocol, the mud cannot find out information about what
> requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
> need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
> stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
> even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
> type" means.
"Cannot" is a mighty strong word. There's no reason that a mud client
couldn't use a different protocol to communicate these things; the
BSD rlogin command does it just fine in many situations, without using
the telnet protocol.
--
|\ _,,,---,,_ Travis S. Casey <ca...@cs.fsu.edu>
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ System Manager, FSU CS department
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' (904) 644-4290; Room 101C Carothers
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) No one agrees with me. Not even me.
rec.games.design FAQ: http://www.cs.fsu.edu/~casey/design.html
Ben Greear
In article <5b6egs$6...@darla.visi.com>, George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote:
>Too bad. I do not see any benefit in coding to 386 standards. You
>would be the first Sun guy I have encountered that suggests we should.
If it runs slow on a 386, then its going to slow down even a pentium if you
also wish to run other things in the background (I assume a decent OS which
allows this kinda thing!) I'm all for GUI clients, even writing one for
my MUD, but efficiency is still an issue, for pride if nothing else!
>
>--
>George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
> i think i've reached that point/where every wish has come true/
> and tired disguised oblivion/is everything i do
> -the cure
--
Ben Greear | "He said he let the bottle do the thinking,
gre...@pollux.cs.uga.edu | but you can't shake the Devil's hand and
www.cs.uga.edu/~greear | say you're only kidding. --TMBG
Darkraven
George Reese <bo...@visi.com> wrote in article
<5bcg06$h...@darla.visi.com>...
> Mark Stanford (kim...@inetworld.net) wrote:
> : >[Snip of some of Mr. Reese's wonderful genius.]
> :[More snipping]
> Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
> Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
> epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
> the same in the face of this Internet growth?
>
> One reason: archaic user interface
Is the reason you think that telnet is an "archaic user interface" is
because we
are living in an age where people are getting lazier and would rather have
neato
pictures on the screen (not even getting into bandwidth usage) and click to
go
somewhere rather than having to spend the extra effort and type something?
It is true that telnet and http's are different in protocals, you don't
actually sit
on a machine when you access a page, but the therory is close to the same.
You are accessing information either way you prefer to connect to the
internet.
As for wanting to do away with telnet (that is what I get to be your point)
I don't
think that the MUD world would survive very long. I have never used ssh,
and plan
to look into it and see what it can do, but I have always used telnet to
get to
MUDs, and as far as I can tell, all the mud clients I have used use the
telnet
protocal to connect to different machines. I don't think that telnet is an
archaic
user interface, and I would much rather use a text version of UNIX or Dos
than
Windows anyday.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Darkraven
Synergy LPmud -- The whole is greater than the sum of the parts.
http://synergy.sigmasoft.com/~synergy
(just for George from a previous message :) )
telnet://synergy.sigmasoft.com:2000
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
[Snip]
George Reese
: : : On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
: [Snip]
:
: : : > Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
: : :
: : : If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See
: : : the quoted paragraph above).
:
: : protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
: : protocol.
:
: Without the telnet protocol, the mud cannot find out information about what
: requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
: need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
: stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
: even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
: type" means.
Most muds neither check for or use this information.
George Reese
David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:
: In article h...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >Explain one thing... Since 1992 the Internet has literally exploded.
: >Yet mud use is roughly the same as it was back then (excepting the
: >epidemic of one person muds). Why is the mudding population roughly
: >the same in the face of this Internet growth?
: >
: >One reason: archaic user interface
:
: Time to post a little evidence contrary to Mr. Reese's beliefs.
:
[ stats showing a large number of players using telnet deleted ]
: From this, I conclude: 3/4 of our players are new to mudding, and also 3/4 of
: them are mudding from their PCs (as George correctly pointed out). However, the
: majority (more than half) use basic telnet. A very small fraction (5%) use the
: web to connect to the mud.
Duh.
This thread is about telnet being a barrier to wider acceptance of
mudding among the general population. You cannot ask the people who
are already mudding what they use as proof that telnet is not a
barrier. You need to talk to the people who are using the web but
don't use muds. Especially to those who have been exposed to muds and
do not play.
Pay attention!
: As for mud usage "not growing" during that period, CBS's "Up To The Minute"
: broadcast on January 3rd 1997, in the "Digital Drive" section did a feature
: about the Internet being used as a tribute to the works of J.R.R. Tolkien.
: They mentioned The Two Towers LPMud, and described such multi-user games
: as "the future of the net" (quote from the broadcast). If you would like
: verification of this you can email ma...@uttm.com or can even call to get
: a tape of the episode: 1-800-739-7979. They also have a webpage, but they
: have not yet put the Jan 3rd episode online because of "technical difficulties"
: as they have said.
:
: Muds are "the future of the net", according to CBS news. And over half of
: mudders (keep in mind that 3/4 of those surveyed were "new" to mudding) are
: using telnet. This data from a mud which was founded in 1994. I think this
: is enough to dispute Mr. Reese's claim that mud is roughly "the same" as it
: was in 1992. Let's get the facts straight.
Again, you draw completely unrelated conclusions from data I
completely agree with. Because CBS says muds are the future of the
Internet does not mean they have grown at all since 1992 (hell, I bet
CBS does not even realize they were around in 1992). Furthermore, I
would agree that they are the future but due to the fact that the user
interface to them will evolve. If the user interface to muds does not
evolve, muds will not be the future.
If you want to show me that muds ahve grown since 1992, show me
numbers that show player variations and mud count variations between
1992 and 1996. I would posit that the mud count has gown up
considerably, but the number of users/mud is down. The mud count is
up specifically because it is infinitely easier to set up a mud these
days (ahh, that ease of use thing). The user/mud count is down
because the user count has not increased significantly but the mud
count has.
George Reese
Chris (C.) Ebenezer (chr...@nortel.ca) wrote:
: mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
: : bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: : >mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
:
: : >: Yup, why go for a nice clean interface when you can muddy things up with
: : >: PPP and slip overhead, not to mention eat up cpu time.
:
: : >Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
: I take it you mean the 'telnet' program, rather than the protocol ? Really
: Mr Reese you are constantly falling into the same trap that you accuse
: others of falling into.
How is that exactly? How do you read 'telnet sucks as an interface'
as anything other than saying 'telnet apps suck'?
: Lets sum a few things up :-
:
: 1, Telnet is the name of a protocol for data transmission, and also the
: name of a unix program (or various incarnations of a unix ..) that
: implement this protocol.
:
: 2, Telnet (the protocol) isn't an interfacei (see above).
No shit, the client is.
: 3, The people who started this thread provide textual based services
: that can be accessed by the telnet program, as well as by other
: means (Java based programs which implement the telnet protocol
: spring to mind).
As do I.
: 4, Someone providing base services isn't very concerned with the ultimate
: user ^interface^. They may be concerned with how their services
: get ultimately presented by certain ^programs^, but this is a
: different issue. They may be (economically?) concerned if the way
: in which they present their service makes it difficult to use, but
: this is yet another issue.
Yep.
: If as you say, you are interested in changing/evolving the telnet protocol
: and/or developing a user friendly program providing a consistent UI to
: the protocol then there are plenty of special interest groups you can join.
: he people who started this thread are not intending to do these things, they
: are promoting a bunch of services that is not often promoted.
Well, you either failed to read, or as yyou did above, poorly read
what I have been saying. I do not want to touch the telnet protocol.
I want to make sure that users can access my services in a way that
makes sense to them. In my vast experience, which probably is much
greater than those arguing with me, the telnet interface (CLIENT for
those who have a hard time understandin what interface means) as it
has been implemented is a barrier to the very new population of
Internet users. I am suggesting that instead of spending time coaxing
people to use an unintuitive interface, time be spent developing an
interface which will naturally draw people to muds.
I am tired of explaining this.
George Reese
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
: bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
:
: >: Yup, why go for a nice clean interface when you can muddy things up with
: >: PPP and slip overhead, not to mention eat up cpu time.
:
: >Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
:
#1 Because pretty much every single telnet client and many muds do a
half-ass implementation of the telnet protocol. This means,
among other things, that bizarre things happen.
#2 Because all telnet clients that a user will have on their machine
mix user input and mud output in a way that creates utter confusion to
new mud users, not to mention neophyte computer users
#3 Because a protocol other than telnet could make clients much more
aware of things in order to create a better user interface.
: >Because using telnet does not reduce slip and ppp overhead anyways?
:
: Given that George has done a fair amount of networking and Unix work
: I think this proves that either he has been hired by his father-in-law
: or this whole thread is a troll or (as is far too often the case in
: the computer industry) he has no knowledge outside his niche.
And the fact that you state this without backing up your claim just
proves you are an ignorant twit. If you doubt my credentials, you can
always check out my resume.
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>[MUD implementations of telnet suck.]
Let me see if I have this straight, telnet sucks because nobody
implements it correctly? I hope the rest of the sentence is that
nobody implements it correctly because it is very difficult to implement.
{other responces deleted due to lack of time)
>: >Because using telnet does not reduce slip and ppp overhead anyways?
>: Given that George has done a fair amount of networking and Unix work
>: I think this proves that either he has been hired by his father-in-law
>: or this whole thread is a troll or (as is far too often the case in
>: the computer industry) he has no knowledge outside his niche.
>And the fact that you state this without backing up your claim just
>proves you are an ignorant twit. If you doubt my credentials, you can
>always check out my resume.
I did, that is why I stated it the way I did. Credentials don't mean
squat. Do an experiment.
Run 1)
Set up kermit, dial in to a provider, telnet somewhere.
Measure response times.
Run 2)
Dial in to a provider, set up a PPP connection, telnet from your home machine
to somewhere, measure response times.
Do three of each at peak usage times and three at minimal usage times
and get back to us.
George Reese
Nathan Fenenga Yospe (yo...@Hawaii.Edu) wrote:
: On 14 Jan 1997 04:05:34 GMT, bo...@visi.com, claiming to be George Reese, posted to rec.games.mud.admin the following:
: : Boneist (bon...@mudhole.ehche.ac.uk) wrote:
:
: : : I'm sure that Bangor University is not alone in the fact that it has
: : : machines which need telnet to connect the student to the net...
: : : which therefore means it is *NOT* an isolated phenomenon...
:
: : It is not nearly as common as the people who don't mud cause they
: : cannot get passed the telnet barrier.
:
: On the other hand, I'd much rather have the kind of people who use telnet
: on MY MUD than the type who use a browser. Just an opinion.
Now that is an ignorant comment if I have ever heard one.
Chris Turner
George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: Chris Turner (chris@jaquart) wrote:
: : George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
: : : Ainvar (ain...@enteract.com) wrote:
: : : : On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
: : [Snip]
: :
: : : : > Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
: : : :
: : : : If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See
: : : : the quoted paragraph above).
: :
: : : No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
: : : protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
: : : protocol.
: :
: : Without the telnet protocol, the mud cannot find out information about what
: : requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
: : need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
: : stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
: : even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
: : type" means.
: Most muds neither check for or use this information.
Most muds don't check for echoing? How do they turn local echoing off to
hide passwords? I think you'll find that most well written muds have this
in at least in a very limited sense.
As for screen sizes, well if you want to cater for people whose
window/screen doesn't linewrap, you'll need that. Or do you expect them to
wade thru menus looking for the option to turn it on? And you'd need the
terminal type to correctly clear the screen or turn on bold etc. (It's not
as if the code is hard to write anyway)
You talk about making things easier, but really, the only reason why things
are hard is because of the interface that you run telnet from.
Martin Keegan
George Reese wrote:
>
> #1 Because pretty much every single telnet client and many muds do a
> half-ass implementation of the telnet protocol. This means,
> among other things, that bizarre things happen.
Shockingly, the 'TELNET' program I presume I got with Win95 doesn't
implement telnet correctly - it assumes that the remote end honours
all option requests(!).
Mk
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
>: Why?
>#2 Because all telnet clients that a user will have on their machine
>mix user input and mud output in a way that creates utter confusion to
>new mud users, not to mention neophyte computer users
Ahhh, now we might be reaching common ground. Utter confusion may be
a bit of an exaguration, but it certainly would be nice to have a session
divided up between an input screen and a description screen. A nice
status line (or two) in between would be nice too.
>#3 Because a protocol other than telnet could make clients much more
>aware of things in order to create a better user interface.
Ooooh! now there is a nice technical description.
Add some details and you might start making a case for MUD client
having an advantages over telnet for accessing MUDs, but your original
statement was that Telnet was outmoded and useless.
Now about these clients, can one fairly easily configure a MUD to easily
serve clients from OS/2, Windows 3.1 and 95, DOS, Unix, Mac and VMS? Each
of those OSes have easily half a million potential MUD users. (Amiga
and Apple II users feel free to speak up).
If the answer is no then I suggest that telnet, being a universally
available "client" has a very real use, i.e. providing access.
Robert
Carlos L. Myers
[Snip]
> I do not want to touch the telnet protocol.
> I want to make sure that users can access my services in a way that
> makes sense to them. In my vast experience, which probably is much
> greater than those arguing with me, the telnet interface (CLIENT for
> those who have a hard time understandin what interface means) as it
> has been implemented is a barrier to the very new population of
> Internet users. I am suggesting that instead of spending time coaxing
> people to use an unintuitive interface, time be spent developing an
> interface which will naturally draw people to muds.
Time to step back into the fire-fight.
Are you retreating from your previous claims that Telnet is obsolete and
therefor should not be promoted? It seems to me that you are now say that
Telnet is OK, but the current generation of Telnet clients are very poor.
I agree that there are hardly any good Windows based Telnet clients, but
that does not mean we should abandon Telnet altogether. What we need to do
is demand better Telnet clients that does not have anywhere near the
problems the current generation of Telnet clients have.
We are living with 3rd generation web browser, 2nd-3rd generation MUD
clients, but we still have only 1st generation Telnet clients. But nobody
is going to make a better Telnet client until there is a demand for better
clients from the general Internet population. And since there is little
exposure of Telnet and Telnet clients to the general population, there is
very little demand for better clients.
The Telnet *NOW* Campain will, hopefully, expose the general population to
Telnet. Then, as they become unsatisfied with the current generation of
clients do to poor design, they will demand better clients. Later, these
same clients can support other terminal protocals like Ssh as they become
more widely used.
The Telnet *NOW* Campain does not, in fact, have MUDs as its cornerstone of
telnetable services. Its cornerstone is talkers which most do not have
special clients like MUDs. And those that do have clients, are coded
specific for that talker and cann't be use on other talkers.
> I am tired of explaining this.
If your so tired, just stop explaining. Many of us are tired you trying to
explaining it with arguments that are to weak to hold water.
Carlos Myers
--
Let's dance tonight to a virtual song
Press this key and you can play along
Rush - Virtuality
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu
chris@bollinger (Chris Turner) writes:
>George Reese (bo...@visi.com) wrote:
>: Chris Turner (chris@jaquart) wrote:
>: :
>: : requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
>: : need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
>: : stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
>: : even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
>: : type" means.
>: Most muds neither check for or use this information.
>Most muds don't check for echoing? How do they turn local echoing off to
>hide passwords? I think you'll find that most well written muds have this
>in at least in a very limited sense.
>As for screen sizes, well if you want to cater for people whose
>window/screen doesn't linewrap, you'll need that. Or do you expect them to
>wade thru menus looking for the option to turn it on? And you'd need the
>terminal type to correctly clear the screen or turn on bold etc. (It's not
>as if the code is hard to write anyway)
Do most telnet clients provide that information? (the incredibly piss-poor
win95 telnet, accessable only through DOS, comes to mind) Or can you get
it without the client's help? How hard IS it write that type of code?
I am (very slowly) writing a MUD and would like to avoid having the
player guess hir screen size. Ideally I would like to have a window
for commands that doesn't scroll as descriptions are sent to the terminal,
failing that I would want to rewrite any command the user is typing
in after a description is sent.
Thoughts, comments?
>You talk about making things easier, but really, the only reason why things
>are hard is because of the interface that you run telnet from.
>
>Chris
TIA
Ishark
Carlos L. Myers (fa...@citynet.net) wrote:
: That is, after all, what telnet was designed to do. And it has
: the widest base of support for computer<->computer comunications then any
: other protocal. There are very few systems that does not have some form of
: a telnet app installed on them. Even Win 95 comes with a telnet client,
: all be it a very poor one.
That does not mean people actually use telnet.
Just a simple question: when you have to edit, compile and debug a
program on a remote system what do you use? A GUI?
: And *IF* telnet is so outdated, then what is its successer?
Nothing. It requires no successor. I am saying the way people use
computers has left telnet behind.
The majority of people, maybe. Those who use Internet the same way the
use the television hopping from URL to URL as they zap from station to
station. Maybe in the future Java will make those sites interactive,
but right now when I need to interact in real time with something I
rarely use the Navigator/Explorer tools.
: But there is a large portion of users that don't use or refuse to use
: Windows or any other GUI OS.
One word: geek
This is ridiculous.
If you think it's not try developing the equivalent of a 10000 lines
program with a visual programming tool.
A GUI is extremely simple and easy to learn as long as what you want
to do is what the GUI allows you to do. This is fine for lots of
people, expecially those who grew using only GUIs. They have learned
that the computer can only do what the buttons of the GUI say.
Fine for them. When GUIs will allow me to do what I need I will switch
to them. Right now when I need to write a program to integrate a set
of differential equations I must write some code, and I can't do it
with a GUI. Does this qualify me as geek?
Alberto
PS: if I remember right you like a lot LPC.....can you program LPC
with a GUI?
--
Alberto BARSELLA \ I have discovered that all Windoze
alb...@astrpi.difi.unipi.it \ problems can be solved with:
http://astrpi.difi.unipi.it/~alberto \ del windows /sxyq (4dos)
PGP fingerprint = 13 3F 22 D2 0B 0A D3 25 F1 89 FE B5 82 AD 75 2A
George Reese
mor...@niuhep.physics.niu.edu wrote:
: I did, that is why I stated it the way I did. Credentials don't mean
: squat. Do an experiment.
:
: Run 1)
: Set up kermit, dial in to a provider, telnet somewhere.
: Measure response times.
:
: Run 2)
: Dial in to a provider, set up a PPP connection, telnet from your home machine
: to somewhere, measure response times.
:
: Do three of each at peak usage times and three at minimal usage times
: and get back to us.
Ok, I apologize. I completely misunderstood what you were saying
there. I thought you were saying that:
#1 Connect via PPP, telnet to your UNIX host, telnet to a mud
#2 Connect via PPP, telnet to a mud
In other words, I thought you were suggesting connecting from a mud
via a UNIX host would save on PPP overhead. That of course is
completely absurd. Fortunately, that is not at all what you were
suggesting.
To get to your point, however, very, very few people connect to the
Internet that way. That is not the method you would advertise to new users.
George Reese
: <5bjljq$i...@darla.visi.com>...
:
: [Snip]
:
: > I do not want to touch the telnet protocol.
: > I want to make sure that users can access my services in a way that
: > makes sense to them. In my vast experience, which probably is much
: > greater than those arguing with me, the telnet interface (CLIENT for
: > those who have a hard time understandin what interface means) as it
: > has been implemented is a barrier to the very new population of
: > Internet users. I am suggesting that instead of spending time coaxing
: > people to use an unintuitive interface, time be spent developing an
: > interface which will naturally draw people to muds.
:
: Time to step back into the fire-fight.
:
: Are you retreating from your previous claims that Telnet is obsolete and
: therefor should not be promoted? It seems to me that you are now say that
: Telnet is OK, but the current generation of Telnet clients are very poor.
No, I am saying telnet clients are obsolete and should not be promoted.
On top of that, I am saying they also suck.
: I agree that there are hardly any good Windows based Telnet clients, but
: that does not mean we should abandon Telnet altogether. What we need to do
: is demand better Telnet clients that does not have anywhere near the
: problems the current generation of Telnet clients have.
Why would anyone write a better telnet client? The reason they suck
is because people don't think it is that important.
: We are living with 3rd generation web browser, 2nd-3rd generation MUD
: clients, but we still have only 1st generation Telnet clients. But nobody
: is going to make a better Telnet client until there is a demand for better
: clients from the general Internet population.
So let's create articificial demand?
: And since there is little
: exposure of Telnet and Telnet clients to the general population, there is
: very little demand for better clients.
Hmm, yes. Create artificial demand.
: The Telnet *NOW* Campain will, hopefully, expose the general population to
: Telnet. Then, as they become unsatisfied with the current generation of
: clients do to poor design, they will demand better clients. Later, these
: same clients can support other terminal protocals like Ssh as they become
: more widely used.
Or maybe they would just rathet connectivity through their web
browsers, which does not require the telnet protocol?
: The Telnet *NOW* Campain does not, in fact, have MUDs as its cornerstone of
: telnetable services. Its cornerstone is talkers which most do not have
: special clients like MUDs. And those that do have clients, are coded
: specific for that talker and cann't be use on other talkers.
And I am suggesting that instead of trying to bring people to their
services, they should bring their services to the people.
: > I am tired of explaining this.
:
: If your so tired, just stop explaining. Many of us are tired you trying to
: explaining it with arguments that are to weak to hold water.
That's because I have been arguing with a bunch of bozos.
George Reese
: >: bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
:
: >: >Because telnet sucks as an interface to muds?
:
: >: Why?
:
: >#2 Because all telnet clients that a user will have on their machine
: >mix user input and mud output in a way that creates utter confusion to
: >new mud users, not to mention neophyte computer users
:
: Ahhh, now we might be reaching common ground. Utter confusion may be
: a bit of an exaguration, but it certainly would be nice to have a session
: divided up between an input screen and a description screen. A nice
: status line (or two) in between would be nice too.
Utter confusion is one response.
: >#3 Because a protocol other than telnet could make clients much more
: >aware of things in order to create a better user interface.
:
: Ooooh! now there is a nice technical description.
:
: Add some details and you might start making a case for MUD client
: having an advantages over telnet for accessing MUDs, but your original
: statement was that Telnet was outmoded and useless.
My original statement was that promoting telnet is a waste of energy
better spent on developing such a mud client protocol and Java based
client applications.
I then went on to say that telnet is an obsolete interface to the
internet.
: Now about these clients, can one fairly easily configure a MUD to easily
: serve clients from OS/2, Windows 3.1 and 95, DOS, Unix, Mac and VMS? Each
: of those OSes have easily half a million potential MUD users. (Amiga
: and Apple II users feel free to speak up).
That is why I support Java as the client environment.
: If the answer is no then I suggest that telnet, being a universally
: available "client" has a very real use, i.e. providing access.
It is useable, and IMHO, should be supported by muds for the
foreseeable future. I am adamntly opposed spending energy promoting
it as THE way of accessing muds or any other system.
ro...@red-branch.mit.edu
: : : Ainvar (ain...@enteract.com) wrote:
: : : : On 10 Jan 1997, George Reese wrote:
: : [Snip]
: :
: : : : > Most players do not use telnet, they use some form of mud client.
: : : :
: : : : If they are using a mud client, they are using the telnet protocol (See
: : : : the quoted paragraph above).
: :
: : : No, this is patently false. Many mud clients may support the telnet
: : : protocol. But it is just fluff. They have no need for the telnet
: : : protocol.
: :
: : requirements the user needs. Terminal types, screen sizes, whether they
: : need echoing - the list goes on. Sure, you can work without this kind of
: : stuff, but then you require the user to set all this, and how many users
: : even know what their terminal type is set to - let alone what "terminal
: : type" means.
: Most muds neither check for or use this information.
Mine does :)
: --
: George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) http://www.imaginary.com/~borg
: i think i've reached that point/where every wish has come true/
: and tired disguised oblivion/is everything i do
: -the cure
--
Robin J Carey
ro...@red-branch.mit.edu
http://www.dtc.rankxerox.co.uk/~robin