End of Nightmare Mudlib Development
George Reese
The development and support of the Nightmare product has over recent
months become more of an obligation than a past-time. Worse, it seems
to me that the crowd starting muds these days have come to view the use
of the mudlib as their right and not something they are lucky to have
access to. Because of this, I have decided to end development of the
Nightmare mudlib and remove it from distribution.
The only sites that should have Nightmare software are imaginary.com
sites. It has been removed from those sites. Those that have the
software without permission should not have had it in the first place,
and are hereby requested to remove it from their archives.
My reasons for developing Nightmare are not what some people have
insinuated. I have in fact had two sets of goals:
* Originally, with Nightmare 1-3, it was to make it so others building
muds did not have to go through the same pains I had to in order to
get a MudOS mud running.
* With Nightmare IV, my focus changed to a very simple one: make
commercial text-based muds non-viable by making sure that LPC
software was of commercial quality.
I did not originally set out to create a supported MudOS mudlib; I set
out to build my own mud, Nightmare. Because of the nascent state of the
MudOS driver, however, there was no 2.4.5 to chose from. It took a lot
of work to get Nightmare playable. I thought it might help others if I
made my work available to them. I did not anticipate the success
Nightmare would have (how could I, no one at the time was using MudOS).
As such, Nightmare was not structured to be a system people *relied* on.
My focus changed to quality freeware development as the Internet
commercialized. Nightmare 3, while the best lib available at the time,
was no piece of art. It was patched together and had many basic design
flaws. Clearly, it was not going to be a good place to start for a
robust object library. That is how Nightmare IV came about.
However, now, for whatever reason, the attitude in the mud world has
changed. I know that I am not the only mud software developer to feel
this way. Starting muds now is as easy as installing any other piece of
PC software. People seem to think *they* are doing *you* a favour by
running your software. Developing in this environment is not enjoyable.
In addition, I think it would help if people realized how lucky they are
to have this software. It is for this reason that I have also decided
to remove Nightmare from distribution. Any mud using the Nightmare
Object Library to start a mud will be doing so illegally.
--
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
Felix A. Croes
George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) wrote:
> The development and support of the Nightmare product has over recent
> months become more of an obligation than a past-time. Worse, it seems
> to me that the crowd starting muds these days have come to view the use
> of the mudlib as their right and not something they are lucky to have
> access to. Because of this, I have decided to end development of the
> Nightmare mudlib and remove it from distribution.
Wow. The end of an era, certainly.
> The only sites that should have Nightmare software are imaginary.com
> sites. It has been removed from those sites. Those that have the
> software without permission should not have had it in the first place,
> and are hereby requested to remove it from their archives.
I hereby apply for special permission to obtain the Nightmare mudlib,
not to start a mud but as a collector's item :)
> My reasons for developing Nightmare are not what some people have
> insinuated. I have in fact had two sets of goals:
> * Originally, with Nightmare 1-3, it was to make it so others building
> muds did not have to go through the same pains I had to in order to
> get a MudOS mud running.
> * With Nightmare IV, my focus changed to a very simple one: make
> commercial text-based muds non-viable by making sure that LPC
> software was of commercial quality.
This is a curious statement, coming from someone who in the past has made no
secret of his commercial mudlib aspirations. Would you care to elaborate?
>[...]
> However, now, for whatever reason, the attitude in the mud world has
> changed. I know that I am not the only mud software developer to feel
> this way. Starting muds now is as easy as installing any other piece of
> PC software. People seem to think *they* are doing *you* a favour by
> running your software. Developing in this environment is not enjoyable.
> In addition, I think it would help if people realized how lucky they are
> to have this software. It is for this reason that I have also decided
> to remove Nightmare from distribution. Any mud using the Nightmare
> Object Library to start a mud will be doing so illegally.
No, you are not the only mud developer to feel this way. But I think that
it is precisely the (possible) commercial potential of software that spawns
this why-am-I-not-being-served attitude. To be honest, whenever someone
starts to hint that DGD's commercial viability depends on my ability to
please him, I say that MudOS is the greatest thing since sliced bread just
to be rid of him. That always works.
What about the Foundation mudlib? Will you remove it from distribution,
also?
Dworkin
George Reese
Felix A. Croes (fe...@xs1.simplex.nl) wrote:
: George Reese (bo...@imaginary.com) wrote:
: > The development and support of the Nightmare product has over recent
: > months become more of an obligation than a past-time. Worse, it seems
: > to me that the crowd starting muds these days have come to view the use
: > of the mudlib as their right and not something they are lucky to have
: > access to. Because of this, I have decided to end development of the
: > Nightmare mudlib and remove it from distribution.
:
: Wow. The end of an era, certainly.
Thanks :) That does mean a lot coming from you.
: > The only sites that should have Nightmare software are imaginary.com
: > sites. It has been removed from those sites. Those that have the
: > software without permission should not have had it in the first place,
: > and are hereby requested to remove it from their archives.
:
: I hereby apply for special permission to obtain the Nightmare mudlib,
: not to start a mud but as a collector's item :)
Heh :) Well, I am not certain how much of a collectors item it is, but
certainly you would be welcome to it :)
: > My reasons for developing Nightmare are not what some people have
: > insinuated. I have in fact had two sets of goals:
: > * Originally, with Nightmare 1-3, it was to make it so others building
: > muds did not have to go through the same pains I had to in order to
: > get a MudOS mud running.
: > * With Nightmare IV, my focus changed to a very simple one: make
: > commercial text-based muds non-viable by making sure that LPC
: > software was of commercial quality.
:
: This is a curious statement, coming from someone who in the past has made no
: secret of his commercial mudlib aspirations. Would you care to elaborate?
I have not wanted to make Nightmare commercial for the sake of making
money. Instead, I wanted to make Nightmare good and commercially
available. If I could build a mudlib that was very good and
commercially available, it would, IMHO, make it harder to justify
developing pure commercial libs from scratch. After all, your
competitors would have a huge jump on you.
That may be very twisted thinking :) I certainly have nothing to back
up that that would be the case. I just felt that being commercially
available changed the equation for commercial mudding in general.
After all, if there are a legion of free muds of equal quality to you,
why would anyone pay?
: >[...]
: > However, now, for whatever reason, the attitude in the mud world has
: > changed. I know that I am not the only mud software developer to feel
: > this way. Starting muds now is as easy as installing any other piece of
: > PC software. People seem to think *they* are doing *you* a favour by
: > running your software. Developing in this environment is not enjoyable.
: > In addition, I think it would help if people realized how lucky they are
: > to have this software. It is for this reason that I have also decided
: > to remove Nightmare from distribution. Any mud using the Nightmare
: > Object Library to start a mud will be doing so illegally.
:
: No, you are not the only mud developer to feel this way. But I think that
: it is precisely the (possible) commercial potential of software that spawns
: this why-am-I-not-being-served attitude. To be honest, whenever someone
: starts to hint that DGD's commercial viability depends on my ability to
: please him, I say that MudOS is the greatest thing since sliced bread just
: to be rid of him. That always works.
*laugh*
Yes, I have seen people on IE talk like that.
: What about the Foundation mudlib? Will you remove it from distribution,
: also?
No. Foundation it a foundation. It helps people get started with a
mud without doing the work for them. The reason I have removed
Nightmare is simply because of an admittedly pompous belief that the
mud community right now needs to appreciate more how complex these
drivers and mudlibs in existence are.
For example, take any driver right now. It is so much easier to get a
compatible mudlib running under them. In 1991 when I started, getting
LPMud to run on any operating system other than the one for which it
was developed required you to do the porting work and muck through the
compilation process. Today, Amylaar, DGD, and MudOS run out of the
box on almost every platform. MudOS and DGD even have Win32 binaries
available!
Now, I know I sound like I think this is a bad thing. I don't, or I
would not have done the Win32 port for MudOS. But I do not think the
community has accepted this ease in the spirit in which it was
intended. To lower the barrier to getting into mud development and
help people become knowledgeable about LPMuds. Instead, they expect
the driver/mudlib developer to handle any of the difficulties for
them. And then cause trouble if this free product is not perfect or
if you do not give them the technical support of a world class help
desk.
Frank Crowell
George Reese wrote:
>
[...]
> access to. Because of this, I have decided to end development of the
> Nightmare mudlib and remove it from distribution.
>
> * With Nightmare IV, my focus changed to a very simple one: make
> commercial text-based muds non-viable by making sure that LPC
> software was of commercial quality.
Even commerical software has bugs. Isn't that what caused this whole
rift-- a few people talking about a few bugs? The commerical world,
however, has a commitment to fix those bugs or to help the users work
around them. They certainly won't post "you suck-- they suck" threads.
A major part of the problem here is that there is a game going on--
it's called "Let's bait George" and they are very good at it.
Look at all the previous posting and see the predictable patterns.
About a dozen of you guys control everything about lpmuds but most
of your public energy is spend on flaming each other or flaming
the "uninformed".
I think the days of flaming are gone. It was fun in the bad old days
when there wasn't much to do on the internet. Now its time
for the high road. The rules for high road are simple:
1. don't flame
2. don't respond to a flames
3. don't demand, suggest
This is my suggestion for a true and lasting peace in rec.games.mud.lp.
Or is it just a lot of fun to pretend that it's rec.games.mud.beirut?
Frank
--
_______________________________________
maddog's studio http://www.maddog.com/
Frank Crowell fra...@maddog.com
`
George Reese
Frank Crowell (fra...@maddog.com) wrote:
Though r.g.m.lp might be a very public forum in which you have seen
discord, it actually has little to do with my feelings. The flamewars
entertain me while I am taking a break from something else or
compiling something more than anything else. It is more the
individual attitudes I see in person and on intergossip and when I
help people with questions. Like people who think their time is more
valuable than mine and get pissed when I suggest they read the
documentation on the web and such.
Tim 'Flint' Cossett
George Reese wrote:
>
> The development and support of the Nightmare product has over recent
> months become more of an obligation than a past-time. Worse, it seems
While George and I have our differences, I am sorry that he had to
make this decision. Coding a lib is a great accomplishment, one that I
know I would never be able to even try starting, let alone actually
succeed in doing. differences aside, I have a lot of respect for his
coding ability.
It is always sad to see a group of whiners have this effect. I won't
bother going into whether or not code is buggy or anything, since I
never used it I wouldn't have know. The fact is that George did this for
others to enjoy for no cost. Personal satisfaction and pride most likely
also played a role in his work. The end result was something that he
enjoyed making, and that others enjoyed using/playing. Unfortunately, as
with so many things in life, people ruin it.
I can understand George not wanting to continue when all he seems to
hear is bitching and whining. It takes the fun out of it. If something
you are doing for enjoyment stops being enjoyable, why continue. That is
soemthing I have asked myself just about being an Arch. I feel sorry
that George had to put up with it to the point where it stopped being
enjoyable, and that others, those who like and use the mudlib, have to
pay for it.
Tim Cossett Fl...@anguish.org
aka
Flint http://www.anguish.org/~flint
David Rudy
In article 5...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
> [snip]
> Instead, they expect
>the driver/mudlib developer to handle any of the difficulties for
>them. And then cause trouble if this free product is not perfect or
>if you do not give them the technical support of a world class help
>desk.
You know, this is odd to hear. In a few prior threads I posted my opinion
that a group starting a mud NEEDS to have a person good in C to fix any
driver problems that were found.
George's answer was simply: bullshit, no one needs to know C to start a
mud. And later (and this is my favorite): if the driver has problems, get
a better driver. --note these are not "exact" quotes, as I do not have the
messages saved
George, I'm sorry that you feel that people are now dependant upon the
mudlib/driver developers as "technical support", but I have to honestly
say that you almost pushed it upon yourself with some of your previous
comments (at least those at a driver level).
I for one have never believed in 'running to the maker' to report mud problems,
however I have often posted to the newsgroups asking for help in explaining a
problem which I found totally unexplainable. While these often did end up
being answered by the designer I usually made no attempt in contacting the
driver designer directly.
That said, I do support your position. LPMuds have long had a reputation of each
being unique - this is because of the work and skill required to customize the
mudlib. Compared to other mud types, where a million "Midgaard" cities exist on
out-of-the-box muds. It is my belief that turning the LP system into a system
which can accept players "out of the box" is a bad move for the LP community as
a whole.
George, thank you for your work in developing the mud community, I look forward
to seeing your work in developing a mud client protocol as per your previous
posts.
David Rudy
dar...@aule.eng.sun.com
George Reese
David Rudy (dar...@Eng.Sun.COM) wrote:: > Instead, they expect
: >the driver/mudlib developer to handle any of the difficulties for
: >them. And then cause trouble if this free product is not perfect or
: >if you do not give them the technical support of a world class help
: >desk.
: You know, this is odd to hear. In a few prior threads I posted my opinion
: that a group starting a mud NEEDS to have a person good in C to fix any
: driver problems that were found.
:
: George's answer was simply: bullshit, no one needs to know C to start a
: mud. And later (and this is my favorite): if the driver has problems, get
: a better driver. --note these are not "exact" quotes, as I do not have the
: messages saved
:
: George, I'm sorry that you feel that people are now dependant upon the
: mudlib/driver developers as "technical support", but I have to honestly
: say that you almost pushed it upon yourself with some of your previous
: comments (at least those at a driver level).
:
: I for one have never believed in 'running to the maker' to report mud problems,
: however I have often posted to the newsgroups asking for help in explaining a
: problem which I found totally unexplainable. While these often did end up
: being answered by the designer I usually made no attempt in contacting the
: driver designer directly.
Well, you have completely misinterpreted what I said. And given your
knack for trying to pick fights with me, I would not be surprised if
it were willfull.
Nothing I have said supports knowing C to run a mud. My complaint is
about people who take my mudlib work as a right. Different subject
altogether. There of course are also the people like you who feel
they need to rip at anyone else who has done something meaningful.
: That said, I do support your position. LPMuds have long had a reputation of each
: being unique - this is because of the work and skill required to customize the
: mudlib. Compared to other mud types, where a million "Midgaard" cities exist on
: out-of-the-box muds. It is my belief that turning the LP system into a system
: which can accept players "out of the box" is a bad move for the LP community as
: a whole.
That is an arrogant attitudem and not my point at all. I believe in a
mudlib that you can customize easily out of the box. Nightmare was
not a mudlib that could accept players out of the box. There is no such
thing in the MudOS world.
: George, thank you for your work in developing the mud community, I look forward
: to seeing your work in developing a mud client protocol as per your previous
: posts.
We'll see how interested I am.
Jan Ingvoldstad
[George Reese]
> That is an arrogant attitudem and not my point at all. I believe in a
> mudlib that you can customize easily out of the box. Nightmare was
> not a mudlib that could accept players out of the box. There is no such
> thing in the MudOS world.
That's depends on what you mean with "out-of-the-box". If you mean
that the MudOS driver should be running smoothly from the start, okay,
I agree with you. If it's only the mudlib you're thinking about,
then we have at least one "living" proof that this is not so. It's
the mud I'm currently half-way in charge of, namely "VikingMUD". The
lib's a horrible mess, but somehow it manages to hang together between
the crashes. ;)
I never cease to be amazed at all those people who want a copy of it
to base their own mud on, but if there aren't any others which are so
"easy" to start out with, well, then I can see. I think I'll stop
talking about this particular lib now before I bore the wits out of
people.
I can understand why people thing they have the "need" for a
"ready-to-run" mudlib, but IMHO, it's more fun in developing that for
yourself. Forever patching on other people's mess (and your own mess
from the days when you weren't so wise yourself) isn't something you
Want to Do. But I guess a lot of people out there don't see it that
way; they just want something to base their areas on, and then they
don't care about the consequence: endless mudlib _patching_.
In general, I think I agree with your (George's) concept of making a
mudlib which is sortof "stripped"; it will provide the basis for
making something of your own; something that makes _your_ mud
different from all those others. So customization based on a
"skeleton" lib is something I believe in, if you want to share your
ideas on how a mudlib should be.
Pity it had to go this way with Nightmare, but I think I can see your
point.
J<>I (dios@viking, if you care)
--
Usj.
Timothy Philip Vernum
bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>Like people who think their time is more
>valuable than mine and get pissed when I suggest they read the
>documentation on the web and such.
I couldn't agree more.
Generally the only questions I personally want to hear are:
* Is there a doc on xxx?
* Can you point me to an example of xxx?
* Could you clarify point xxx in your example/doc please?
====
With Nightmare gone there's a much narrower range of libs available.
Unless you want to build up your own lib from Foundation, then it tends to
be a choice of Lima, An old style lib (which may well be very good, but
right now Muds need more innovation , not more of the things we were doing
years ago), using a different driver (which is basically the same as using
an older lib) or starting your own lib entirely.
Amazing how the removal of 1 lib changes things so much.
It would appear that George's actions will acheive what he planned, it's
a pity it had to happen this way tho'
Rich
tp...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au (Timothy Philip Vernum) writes:
> With Nightmare gone there's a much narrower range of libs available.
If anyone would like a lib derived from the Discworld mudlib,
they are more than welcome to ask for a copy of ours. We have changed a
lot of it and it is a long way away from being finished. It needs a bit of
work before it will be usable, and I don't have the time to provide support.
Two muds have used it and another is waiting for the current version to be
stripped. (The first mud was a lost cause and is no longer run).
There is a significant difference from the distribution Discworld mudlib
not only in the regard that our mudlib works :) It needs a modified driver,
but with a little work can run on a native one (we got our version from
Suvangi which does so).
Anyway, if anyone wants the lib log on and ask me/mail me.
If you want to have a look around any of the above mentioned muds:
--------------------------------------------------
mud host port
--------------------------------------------------
Discworld discworld.imaginary.com 4242
Fires of Heaven duck.tronco.com 3500
Nameless Sorrows hali.rhi.hi.is 3000
sorrows.imaginary.com (might work in future eh descartes? :)
Suvangi suvangi.com [default telnet port: 23]
--------------------------------------------------
Hmm, maybe I should do a Discworld mudlib derived mud mudlist :)
Yours,
Donky (Richard Tew) - administrator of Nameless Sorrows
David Bennett (pinkfish)
Rich (misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
:
: There is a significant difference from the distribution Discworld mudlib
: not only in the regard that our mudlib works :)
Thems fighting words! :) Just because it only works with some amazingly old
version of mudos... Sheeze :) Or was it 3.1.2?
: It needs a modified driver,
: but with a little work can run on a native one (we got our version from
: Suvangi which does so).
:
Or. You could use the forgotten realms mudlib. Whic is
available on imaginary. Also based on Discworld.
There is also a very old version of discworld out there :)
Good luck,
David.
[DDT] Pink fish forever.
George Reese
Jacob Hallen (ja...@cd.chalmers.se) wrote:
[ good points about Genesis and CD deleted ]
: While I appreciate the the Nightmare mudlib has made it easy to set up
: your own mud, I think that it has been made too easy. A quality mud
: needs quality people to run it, something which George did not
: consider when he made the Nightmare mudlib generally available. He is
: not alone in falling into the trap though. The old Genesis suffered
: from giving too much away in the mudlib, resulting in literally 100
: clones of the mud being out there at one time.
:
: Creating a mud should require skill, toil, imagination and
: determination. Only then does the mud have a chance of becoming
: something great.
While I agree with that last paragraph, I do not think the toil or
skill involved should have anything to do with computer programming.
My goal was always to remove programming as a barrier so those with
great imagination and drive could be empowered by the underlying code
(enough buzzwords for you?). Unfortunately, too many people did see
it as a short cut. That is why the latest releases of NM had no areas
with them.
But again, I certainly agree with your overall sentiments that people
should see a mud as something they need to work at, not something they
install.
Jake S Greenland
In article: <5cjkh1$o...@darla.visi.com> d...@visi.com (David Bennett
> There is also a very old version of discworld out there :)
>
> Good luck,
You're not, by any chance, referring to the 7a release are you PF ? Ahh
the nightmares I had getting that to wrok when that was actually what we
had online :)
Jake
--
--------------------------------------------------------
Ja...@Mythology.demon.co.uk Sojan@Discworld
"I am not a Frog, I am a Free Womble"
--------------------------------------------------------
Jacob Hallen
In article <5cgomr$q...@news.istar.ca>,
Tim 'Flint' Cossett <fl...@istar.ca> wrote:
>
> I can understand George not wanting to continue when all he seems to
>hear is bitching and whining. It takes the fun out of it. If something
>you are doing for enjoyment stops being enjoyable, why continue. That is
>soemthing I have asked myself just about being an Arch. I feel sorry
>that George had to put up with it to the point where it stopped being
>enjoyable, and that others, those who like and use the mudlib, have to
>pay for it.
I must say that I never felt the urge to supply something that allowed
everybody and his little sister to start up a mud. If you do you are
bound to come up with a lot of silly questions and stupid demands from
less appreciative people.
The CD mudlib has always been distributed with a low profile and a
minimum set of instructions on how to make the thing run. It is
assumed that you have been coding LPC for a while and that you are
able to make a simple program fix in C.
Questions are answered if you show up at Genesis and turn out to be a
person we want to associate with. It has worked wonders. The CDLib
based muds are independent, original, run by competent people and
generally superior to the average mud.
While I appreciate the the Nightmare mudlib has made it easy to set up
your own mud, I think that it has been made too easy. A quality mud
needs quality people to run it, something which George did not
consider when he made the Nightmare mudlib generally available. He is
not alone in falling into the trap though. The old Genesis suffered
from giving too much away in the mudlib, resulting in literally 100
clones of the mud being out there at one time.
Creating a mud should require skill, toil, imagination and
determination. Only then does the mud have a chance of becoming
something great.
Jacob Hallén
David Bennett (pinkfish)
Jake S Greenland (ja...@mythology.demon.co.uk) wrote:
:
: You're not, by any chance, referring to the 7a release are you PF ? Ahh
: had online :)
Ahh yes. Well packed and easy to install. The hall mark of the
Discworld lib :)
Some people did manage it though,
David.
Tim Hollebeek
In article <5cik3k$6qm$1...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au>, tp...@wumpus.its.uow.edu.au writes:
> bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
>
> >Like people who think their time is more
> >valuable than mine and get pissed when I suggest they read the
> >documentation on the web and such.
>
> I couldn't agree more.
> Generally the only questions I personally want to hear are:
> * Is there a doc on xxx?
> * Can you point me to an example of xxx?
> * Could you clarify point xxx in your example/doc please?
Well, I personally don't mind questions at all, as long as (1) people
realize that *I* get to decide whether I want to help them or not, and
if I don't have time for them, then that's my decision and doesn't
reflect badly on me, and (2) they have already read the relevant
documentation [which may or may not exist] :-)
I'm personally much more likely to answer questions about undocumented
sections of Lima or MudOS; I also prefer email, since I can answer it
when I have time ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Hollebeek | Disclaimer :=> Everything above is a true statement,
Electron Psychologist | for sufficiently false values of true.
Princeton University | email: t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu
----------------------| http://wfn-shop.princeton.edu/~tim (NEW! IMPROVED!)
Tim Hollebeek
In article <5cgo9q$h...@handler.Eng.Sun.COM>, dar...@Eng.Sun.COM writes:
> In article 5...@darla.visi.com, bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
> > [snip]
> > Instead, they expect
> >the driver/mudlib developer to handle any of the difficulties for
> >them. And then cause trouble if this free product is not perfect or
> >if you do not give them the technical support of a world class help
> >desk.
>
> You know, this is odd to hear. In a few prior threads I posted my opinion
> that a group starting a mud NEEDS to have a person good in C to fix any
> driver problems that were found.
>
> George's answer was simply: bullshit, no one needs to know C to start a
> mud. And later (and this is my favorite): if the driver has problems, get
> a better driver. --note these are not "exact" quotes, as I do not have the
> messages saved
>
> George, I'm sorry that you feel that people are now dependant upon the
> mudlib/driver developers as "technical support", but I have to honestly
> say that you almost pushed it upon yourself with some of your previous
> comments (at least those at a driver level).
Huh? George has rarely, if ever, done any driver support. I don't see
how you can connect George's feelings about mudlib support with his feelings
about the need to modify the driver to run a MUD. They are two entirely
different topics.
Tim Hollebeek
In article <32EBBEFE...@maddog.com>, Frank Crowell <fra...@maddog.com> writes:
> George Reese wrote:
> >
> [...]
> > access to. Because of this, I have decided to end development of the
> > Nightmare mudlib and remove it from distribution.
> >
> [...]
>
> > * With Nightmare IV, my focus changed to a very simple one: make
> > commercial text-based muds non-viable by making sure that LPC
> > software was of commercial quality.
>
> Even commerical software has bugs. Isn't that what caused this whole
> rift-- a few people talking about a few bugs? The commerical world,
> however, has a commitment to fix those bugs or to help the users work
> around them. They certainly won't post "you suck-- they suck" threads.
If you think this is solely because of the recent idiocy of a few
individuals, you're wrong; sadly, it has been obvious this was going
to happen sooner or later for a number of years.
BTW, I wrote this after getting back up off the floor after having a good
laugh with respect to "The commercial world has a commitment to fix bugs".
That may be true of certain (IMO quality) software companies, but not
in general. Just recently another company tried to sell me a bugfix ...
> A major part of the problem here is that there is a game going on--
> it's called "Let's bait George" and they are very good at it.
Unfortunately, yes.
> Look at all the previous posting and see the predictable patterns.
> About a dozen of you guys control everything about lpmuds but most
> of your public energy is spend on flaming each other or flaming
> the "uninformed".
If you are talking about who I think you are talking about, you seriously
overestimate our power or desire to wield it.
> I think the days of flaming are gone. It was fun in the bad old days
> when there wasn't much to do on the internet. Now its time
> for the high road. The rules for high road are simple:
> 1. don't flame
> 2. don't respond to a flames
> 3. don't demand, suggest
Look who wants to impose his rules on others now :-)
Seriously, there are a small number of arrogant fools in this group who
deserve what they get. Sometimes George even fits in this group, although
not nearly as often as the fools who bait him would like to suggest.
It is also unfortunate that you didn't include the most important rule:
0. refrain from character assassination and ad hominem attacks
ThresholdMUD
In article <5cjkh1$o...@darla.visi.com>,
d...@visi.com (David Bennett (pinkfish)) wrote:
>Rich (misc...@csc.canterbury.ac.nz) wrote:
>Or. You could use the forgotten realms mudlib. Whic is
>available on imaginary. Also based on Discworld.
>
I was wondering. Does this "Forgotten Realms" mudlib have permission from T$R
to use this term? If not, its authors may want to change the name asap. T$R is
quite strict in defending their trademarks/copyrights.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter, mage, thief, cleric, psion, alchemist, shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Telnet: mud.chelmsford.com -or- mud.chelmsford.com 23
Aristotle@ThresholdMURPE - mac...@ix.netcom.com
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jan Ingvoldstad
mac...@ix.netcom.com (ThresholdMUD) writes:
> I was wondering. Does this "Forgotten Realms" mudlib have permission
> from T$R to use this term? If not, its authors may want to change
> the name asap. T$R is quite strict in defending their
> trademarks/copyrights.
I think "Forgotten Realms" changed name to "Final Realms" quite some
time ago. It might be that I'm mistaken, and that "Final Realms" has
existed for quite some time and that "Forgotten Realms" just
disappeared, but I suppose not. As you claim; T$R are protective.
And "Forgotten Realms" isn't something brand new of the year.
BTW, you might want to fix your signature. 4 lines by 80 characters,
and it'll be McQ and complying to Usenet standards. :)
J<>I
--
Usj.
p.waltenberg
>>Or. You could use the forgotten realms mudlib. Whic is
>>available on imaginary. Also based on Discworld.
>>
>
> to use this term? If not, its authors may want to change the name asap. T$R is
> quite strict in defending their trademarks/copyrights.
>
FR == Final Realms NOT Forgotten Realms.
And yes the lib is available, it's generally the one a generation
back from the one running on fr.imaginary.com 4001.
It has the redeeming feature that it's one of the few libs released
from a currently running MUD. Most of the areas are stripped out and a
few items like our magic wand/scroll collection, but otherwise it's
FR as it was up and running.
Peter Waltenberg (Taniwha@FR)
Thomas Lundquist
Jan Ingvoldstad (ja...@maud.ifi.uio.no) wrote:
: mac...@ix.netcom.com (ThresholdMUD) writes:
: > I was wondering. Does this "Forgotten Realms" mudlib have permission
: > from T$R to use this term? If not, its authors may want to change
: > the name asap. T$R is quite strict in defending their
: > trademarks/copyrights.
: I think "Forgotten Realms" changed name to "Final Realms" quite some
: time ago. It might be that I'm mistaken, and that "Final Realms" has
: existed for quite some time and that "Forgotten Realms" just
: disappeared, but I suppose not. As you claim; T$R are protective.
: And "Forgotten Realms" isn't something brand new of the year.
You are right, Once it was Forgotten Realms and now it is Final Realms.
We also have a mudlib out (our 2.1 version) with a horribly old town
in it. You can get it from imaginary as Pinkfish said.
I am working on releasing a new version of the mudlib (3.something)
You might say that Forgotten Realms just dissapeared.. The mud came
back as Final Realms one and a half year later with a reworked mudlib and
a site to run the mud on.
Baldrick@Final Realms. (fr.imaginary.com 4001)
Steven David Zelinka
In article <5cm3ol$g...@dfw-ixnews9.ix.netcom.com>,
ThresholdMUD <mac...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
:In article <5cjkh1$o...@darla.visi.com>,:>Or. You could use the forgotten realms mudlib. Whic is
:>available on imaginary. Also based on Discworld.
:
:I was wondering. Does this "Forgotten Realms" mudlib have permission from
:asap. T$R is quite strict in defending their trademarks/copyrights.
Actually, the FR in FR-lib is short for Final Realms, not Forgotten Realms.
(TSR already defended their trademarks/copyrights a few years ago :))
Regards,
Steve
Nick Silberstein
thom...@linnea.online.no (Thomas Lundquist) writes:
>
> Baldrick@Final Realms. (fr.imaginary.com 4001)
>
Why, hello Baldrick. =) I thought you had dropped off the
face of the earth (or Disc, as it were).
Explode, ignore David; it's lots of fun!
Dreldragon@Discworld, wombling free.
George Reese
Tim Hollebeek (t...@franck.Princeton.EDU.composers) wrote:
:
: > bo...@visi.com (George Reese) writes:
: >
: > >Like people who think their time is more
: > >valuable than mine and get pissed when I suggest they read the
: > >documentation on the web and such.
: >
: > I couldn't agree more.
: > Generally the only questions I personally want to hear are:
: > * Is there a doc on xxx?
: > * Can you point me to an example of xxx?
: > * Could you clarify point xxx in your example/doc please?
:
: Well, I personally don't mind questions at all, as long as (1) people
: realize that *I* get to decide whether I want to help them or not, and
: if I don't have time for them, then that's my decision and doesn't
: reflect badly on me, and (2) they have already read the relevant
: documentation [which may or may not exist] :-)
:
: I'm personally much more likely to answer questions about undocumented
: sections of Lima or MudOS; I also prefer email, since I can answer it
: when I have time ...
Nothing like a good met-too post! But since I started the thread,
what the hell :)
I simply hate things most when people act like they are doing me a
favour by using NM. That happens all too often. For example, this
last month I have been extremely busy finishing up my book and have
had little time for mud development (read: no time). People come to
me, ask for help, and then threaten (yes, threaten) to use another lib
because I do not have time to help them. As if they are paying
customers!
Get a clue people! I never cared if you used Nightmare or not. I
have, however, always cared about baseless *attacks* on my work--which
you probably confused for caring about whether you use it. Different
concepts really.
In fact, I have been more concerned recently with why people are using
TMI-2 instead of Lima. A reflection of competency level of those
starting muds these days, I suppose.
Thomas Lundquist
Nick Silberstein (ni...@fusioni.com) wrote:
: thom...@linnea.online.no (Thomas Lundquist) writes:
: >
: > Baldrick@Final Realms. (fr.imaginary.com 4001)
: >
: Why, hello Baldrick. =) I thought you had dropped off the
: face of the earth (or Disc, as it were).
seems like I am..:=)
logging in right now as a new char.
:=)
Baldrick
--
Engage
Tim Hollebeek
In article <5clvih$4...@nyheter.chalmers.se>, ja...@cd.chalmers.se writes:
>
> Creating a mud should require skill, toil, imagination and
> determination. Only then does the mud have a chance of becoming
> something great.
Creating a quality MUD is hard enough. Making it harder just for the
sake of making it harder is (IMO) stupid.
People express this sentiment all the time, but I have never understood it.
Sure, if a mudlib is easy to set up, then lots of people who are not willing
to put in the amount of time required to make it into a decent MUD will throw
up a piece of crap. So what? Its not like MUDs like that last that long
anyway.
Just because Joe MUDder can set up a mudlib doesn't mean he can design
and run a MUD, even if he thinks he can. But people who *do* have the
experience necessary shouldn't have to suffer through lack of
documentation, etc, just because some high and mighty mudlib
distributor wants to make things difficult and likes to thumb his nose
at people who don't know as much about LPC or LPmuds.
Doug Bora
: Get a clue people! I never cared if you used Nightmare or not. I
: have, however, always cared about baseless *attacks* on my work--which
: you probably confused for caring about whether you use it. Different
: concepts really.
You must have cared to some degree. Otherwise why were you doing it?
Lemme give you an example: I run a publically accessable BBS, and have
done so for about 6 years now. Do I care if I have callers? Of course I
do! Otherwise why bother running it? But that doesn't mean I'm gonna
take shit from the people that are essentially guests in my home. You
piss on my sofa (figuratively speaking), and I'm throwing you out on your
ass. Make demands of me, and you're just as gone. I'm sure the same
thing goes for Admin'ing a mud. You want people to play, but the ones
that take it for granted to the point of being dicks get tossed.
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
ThresholdMURPE
In article <5crrlp$59j$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, stig...@wwa.com (Doug Bora) wrote:
>: Get a clue people! I never cared if you used Nightmare or not. I
>: have, however, always cared about baseless *attacks* on my work--which
>: you probably confused for caring about whether you use it. Different
>: concepts really.
>
>You must have cared to some degree. Otherwise why were you doing it?
>Lemme give you an example: I run a publically accessable BBS, and have
>done so for about 6 years now. Do I care if I have callers? Of course I
>do! Otherwise why bother running it? But that doesn't mean I'm gonna
>take shit from the people that are essentially guests in my home. You
I think George *cares* of people play NightareMUD but probably doesnt *care*
nearly as much if people make their own mud using the NightmareLib.
I think that is an important distinction.
-Aristotle@ThresholdMURPE
George Reese
ThresholdMURPE (mac...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
Well put. I was trying to think of how to reply to that, but I think
you summed it up very well.
Doug Bora
: Well put. I was trying to think of how to reply to that, but I think
: you summed it up very well.
Hrm. His reply didn't really explain why you were doing it, though.
Perhaps it was simply for the sheer joy of coding? :-)
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
George Reese
Doug Bora (stig...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : Well put. I was trying to think of how to reply to that, but I think
No, I explained that in the post that started this thread. At first I
did it strictly for Nightmare and released what I had for Nightmare so
others did not have to go through the exact same process. Later I
simply wanted to prove that it was possible to release commercial
grade software without charging money.
Jacob Hallen
In article <5cqp4l$q...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>,
Tim Hollebeek <t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu> wrote:
>
>Creating a quality MUD is hard enough. Making it harder just for the
>sake of making it harder is (IMO) stupid.
Then I'm afraid I must hold your opinion in low esteem. One reason that
the general quality of muds has fallen over the last few years is that
the people with talent for doing great stuff are thinly spread and in the
hands of clueless and incompetent admins who fail to develop these people
to their full potential.
>People express this sentiment all the time, but I have never understood it.
>Sure, if a mudlib is easy to set up, then lots of people who are not willing
>to put in the amount of time required to make it into a decent MUD will throw
>up a piece of crap. So what? Its not like MUDs like that last that long
>anyway.
The crap muds are a sore to the eye and an insult to the poor players
who try to play them. It is better if they never came into existance
at all.
Of course that is only my opinion, but I can assure you that it isn't
a humble one.
>Just because Joe MUDder can set up a mudlib doesn't mean he can design
>and run a MUD, even if he thinks he can. But people who *do* have the
>experience necessary shouldn't have to suffer through lack of
>documentation, etc, just because some high and mighty mudlib
>distributor wants to make things difficult and likes to thumb his nose
>at people who don't know as much about LPC or LPmuds.
There is no guarantee that someone who is able to get the mudlib up is
competent in the fields of administrating it or coming up with nifty ideas.
However, and I think the mud world has shown this time after time, there
is a much greater chance that someone with enough blue fluff between the
ears to set up an undocumented mudlib is also smart enough to either run
the mud himself/herself or to get competent people to do it.
The people who run a mud as a powertrip never seem to come up with the
notion of allowing anyone else to manage some aspect of the game.
Jacob Hallén
Tim Hollebeek
In article <5crrlp$59j$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, stig...@wwa.com writes:
> : Get a clue people! I never cared if you used Nightmare or not. I
> : have, however, always cared about baseless *attacks* on my work--which
> : you probably confused for caring about whether you use it. Different
> : concepts really.
>
> You must have cared to some degree. Otherwise why were you doing it?
> Lemme give you an example: I run a publically accessable BBS, and have
> done so for about 6 years now. Do I care if I have callers? Of course I
> do! Otherwise why bother running it?
Non sequitor. I originally released my patches to MudOS for because I
was improving it for my own personal use, and though it was selfish to
keep the patches to myself, since others had given me the MudOS source
for free. It had absolutely nothing to do with wanting people to use
it.
The same goes for Lima. If you like it, use it. If you don't, write your
own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
Brian James Green
I have to agree with Tim here. I've recently been setting up my own
MUD. I'm the most technically able of the group of people that want to
set up the MUD, but it is still rather tough! We all have good ideas,
decent leadership skills and a bold vision. Should we be denied the
ability to express this inexpensively and allow others to share in our
vision without monitary gain? I would think not! Even if we're not
technical geniuses.
I know of several people who have a lot of technical expertise that I
would NEVER allow to have a position of leadership with in the game.
Not even if I were high on crack. Not even if I were DEAD. Just
because someone can set up a driver and a lib doesn't mean they can
administrate, or even come up with a creative idea!
I think George's original goal was to allow the technical inept to run a
MUD, to express their ideas, without having to go through several years
of computer science/programming training. There are a lot of creative
people that could bring a spark of life to the medium in terms of design
and concepts, but it seems certain elitists would rather they not add to
our little clique.
And, let me tell you, if some idiot stays on a sucky MUD, they deserve
whatever they get. Only idiots stay and play MUDs they don't like.
That's why there are so many of them!
All IMHO, of course.
"And I now wait / to shake the hand of fate...." -"Defender", Manowar
Brian Green, pch...@iastate.edu aka Psychochild
|\ _,,,---,,_ *=* Morpheus, my kitten, says "Hi!" *=*
ZZzz /,`.-'`' -. ;-;;,_ "If you two are so evil, then why don't
|,4- ) )-,_..;\ ( `'-' you just...EAT THIS KITTEN!"
'---''(_/--' `-'\_) - "The Tick", Saturday morning cartoon.
Check out: http://www.public.iastate.edu/~pchild to find out more 'bout me!
Doug Bora
: The same goes for Lima. If you like it, use it. If you don't, write your
: own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
: suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
: I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
You guys sure are a touchy lot. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.
I understand it's your mudlib, and you'll decide what is or isn't added to
it. At least when I see something wrong, or have a suggestion, I use the
appropriate command to report it. Many people will see a bug, and just
ignore it rather than take the time to report it so that it can be fixed.
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
George Reese
Doug Bora (stig...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : The same goes for Lima. If you like it, use it. If you don't, write your
I think perhaps you might try walking a mile in our shoes.
Colin Coghill
Doug Bora (stig...@wwa.com) wrote:
: : The same goes for Lima. If you like it, use it. If you don't, write your
: : own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
: : suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
: : I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
: You guys sure are a touchy lot. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.
: I understand it's your mudlib, and you'll decide what is or isn't added to
: it.
Many people, however, don't.
It's sad that people who decide to be generous and allow other people to
look at and use their code end up taking so much flak for it.
I really don't know what the solution is.
I just hope that we can find enough people willing to actually be helpful
and supportive rather than the deluge of criticism and personal attacks
that seems to be trendy.
I don't think the biggest threat to MUDs are the Quakes and Diablo's. I
think the biggest threat is that the hordes of whiners drive the good
developers away from the scene.
- Colin
--
"If you are going to kill me, then do so. Otherwise, I have
considerable work to do."
-- Lennier to Kalain in Babylon 5:"Points of Departure"
-------------------------------+-------------------------------------------
PGP Public Key available | Campaigning for 4 line .sigs
Jeffrey Taylor
Thanks to Tim and George for MudOS and Nightmare. I adopted these not
because I'm technically inept (I'm not) but because I would rather be
building a world than a Mudlib or driver. I was two years into building
all three from scratch and decided the millenium would come and go before
I was done. Adopting MudOS and NM moved me forward several years. I do
report bugs and change them in my own code which is rapidly diverging from
mainstream NM. Whether I have the skills to build and administer remains
to be seen. (IMHO, building I can do, ideas I have, dealing with jerks is
iffy, when the MUD is opened I may soon be as touchy as George).
Karios of Mythos (opening someday)
rlo...@franck.princeton.edu.composers
In article <5dbgpr$daq$1...@kirin.wwa.com>, stig...@wwa.com writes:
> : The same goes for Lima. If you like it, use it. If you don't, write your
> : own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
> : suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
> : I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
>
> You guys sure are a touchy lot. I wasn't suggesting anything of the sort.
> I understand it's your mudlib, and you'll decide what is or isn't added to
> it. At least when I see something wrong, or have a suggestion, I use the
> appropriate command to report it. Many people will see a bug, and just
> ignore it rather than take the time to report it so that it can be fixed.
I'm the touchy one? You said "You must have cared" in response to "I never
cared whether you used ..."; I was simply disagreeing with you.
I *don't care* if you use MudOS or not; if you insist on saying Descartes
or I do again, we will simply disagree with you again.
Doug Bora
: I'm the touchy one? You said "You must have cared" in response to "I never
: cared whether you used ..."; I was simply disagreeing with you.
: I *don't care* if you use MudOS or not; if you insist on saying Descartes
: or I do again, we will simply disagree with you again.
Uh yeah. Whatever. Discussion pointless. Dropped. Agree or disagree
with this statement at your leisure and/or discretion. I still think you
guys are a bit on the touchy side. *shrug*
--
Doug Bora
stig...@wwa.com
Jacob Hallen
In article <5d8d0n$8f4$1...@news.iastate.edu>,
Brian James Green <pch...@iastate.edu> wrote:
>I have to agree with Tim here. I've recently been setting up my own
>MUD. I'm the most technically able of the group of people that want to
>set up the MUD, but it is still rather tough! We all have good ideas,
>decent leadership skills and a bold vision. Should we be denied the
>ability to express this inexpensively and allow others to share in our
>vision without monitary gain? I would think not! Even if we're not
>technical geniuses.
If you have what it takes to run a good mud, someone will help you to set
it up and will give you advise on how to avoid the most dangerous
pitfalls. I've done so myself with a few muds that have turned out to
be greatly successful. It's a much better way than just throwing your code
at anyone who wants it.
From what you write, Brian, it looks as if you have a promising future.
You view the code as hard to understand, which it certainly is, but not
as something impossible. You'll learn, and with a determined and curious
attitude you can enlist the help of the old and weathered mud hands
to get you over the impossible hurdles.
>I think George's original goal was to allow the technical inept to run a
>MUD, to express their ideas, without having to go through several years
>of computer science/programming training. There are a lot of creative
>people that could bring a spark of life to the medium in terms of design
>and concepts, but it seems certain elitists would rather they not add to
>our little clique.
I am an elitist. I think that crappy books should go unpublished, that
crappy art should be thrown away, crappy houses should be torn down or
preferably never be built in the first place. If I can prevent crappy
muds from coming into existance, even at the cost of a few good muds
never happening, I'll do that.
>And, let me tell you, if some idiot stays on a sucky MUD, they deserve
>whatever they get. Only idiots stay and play MUDs they don't like.
>That's why there are so many of them!
When you first encounter mudding, you don't know what to expect. If the mud
you started on happends to be crappy, you will probably lose interest and
go away. Or you may play for a while, get interested in coding, become a
wizard, code for a while and find out that the mud politics suck big time.
Supporting every Tom, Dick, Harry and their little brothers to set up a mud
is to do mudders in general a disservice. Carefully selecting the people
you want to support is to do something constructive.
Jacob Hallen
ThresholdMURPE
Gee. I wonder why. With people so unable to express *any* degree of gratitude
towards them for their generous work, are you surprised that they don't jump
for joy when idiots flame them for the way they GIVE their work out for free?
-Aristotle@ThresholdMURPE
n.b. I use MudOS, but not Nightmare
ThresholdMURPE
In article <5d5lbt$2...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu wrote:
>own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
>suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
>I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
>
Tim, I hesitated to post this, because I think it is generally very arrogant
and innacruate for any person to claim to know what another person's motives
are. However, it has always been my impression that one of the benefits of
publicly releasings ones code (like MudOS, Lima, etc.) is that you get ideas,
suggestions, bug reports, etc. from the many people that use your program.
Surely, this is helpful to you or other designed, but I think this is a FAR
CRY from "caring" if they use it or not.
The reason I bring this up is that many people seem to be *searching* for
something that you *gain* from publicly releaseing MudOS and Lima. If they are
so desperate to find some benefit you gain from this, perhaps my first
paragraph is one you can point to. *shrug*
-Aristotle@ThresholdMURPE
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
VISIT THRESHOLD MURPE! Online High Fantasy RPG!
Guilds: fighter, mage, thief, cleric, psion, alchemist, shapeshifter
Player run clans, businesses, legal system, nobility, highly developed
religions, missile combat, tons of quests/areas, intense Role Playing!
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Telnet: mud.chelmsford.com -or- mud.chelmsford.com 23
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
George Reese
ThresholdMURPE (mac...@ix.netcom.com) wrote:
: In article <5d5lbt$2...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu wrote:
: >own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
: >suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
: >I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
: >
:
: Tim, I hesitated to post this, because I think it is generally very arrogant
: and innacruate for any person to claim to know what another person's motives
: are. However, it has always been my impression that one of the benefits of
: publicly releasings ones code (like MudOS, Lima, etc.) is that you get ideas,
: suggestions, bug reports, etc. from the many people that use your program.
:
: Surely, this is helpful to you or other designed, but I think this is a FAR
: CRY from "caring" if they use it or not.
:
: The reason I bring this up is that many people seem to be *searching* for
: something that you *gain* from publicly releaseing MudOS and Lima. If they are
: so desperate to find some benefit you gain from this, perhaps my first
: paragraph is one you can point to. *shrug*
This is not a benefit of public release of code. Public release of
code gets you more uninformed commentary than anything useful. If
your goal is what you state above, choose a limited, well-informed and
well-defined target group.
Tim Hollebeek
In article <33079...@news.athens.net>, mac...@ix.netcom.com writes:
> In article <5d5lbt$2...@cnn.Princeton.EDU>, t...@wfn-shop.princeton.edu wrote:
> >own, and don't come whining to me. Of course, I'm always interested in
> >suggestions how either MudOS or Lima could be better, but don't act like
> >I'm obligated to do anything for you if I disagree.
> >
>
> Tim, I hesitated to post this, because I think it is generally very arrogant
> and innacruate for any person to claim to know what another person's motives
> are.
Well put.
> However, it has always been my impression that one of the benefits of
> publicly releasings ones code (like MudOS, Lima, etc.) is that you get ideas,
> suggestions, bug reports, etc. from the many people that use your program.
True, but in my experience the amount you get out of it is very small
compared to the amount you put in. If I was really doing this based on
a cost/benefit type evaluation, I would have quit long ago. This isn't
really a complaint, just an observation; there are plenty of people who
are really very very appreciative and helpful. Of course, most of what
they do benefits the MudOS and/or Lima community as well, and not me
directly anyway.
The one thing which I *do* get which I like is feedback about what
people like and/or dislike, what works and what doesn't, what could
work better, etc, and that sort of thing is very helpful. I can't
really even imagine that being important enough to tip the balance and
make me distribute something I didn't originally intend on
distributing, though.
> The reason I bring this up is that many people seem to be *searching* for
> something that you *gain* from publicly releaseing MudOS and Lima.
What I do not understand is why they put so much effort into it? Is
it so hard to understand that (1) I might be a nice guy, and (2) have
benefited from other people's generosity and like giving something
useful back?
Maybe people are so selfish themselves they have convinced themselves I
have alterior motives. Luckily, I don't really care. There are plenty
of people out there who do understand, I think.