[1162] in Coldmud discussion meeting

root meeting help first first in chain previous in chain previous next next in chain last in chain last

Re: Intermud3 (was Re: [COLD] Is there ...)

daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Mon Dec 2 19:00:17 1996 )

From: Gregory D Lewis <glewis@maths.adelaide.edu.au>
To: coldstuff@cold.org
Date: Tue, 3 Dec 1996 10:14:05 +1030 (CST)
In-Reply-To: <32A36DD8.748AA00A@maddog.com> from "Frank Crowell" at Dec 2, 96 04:01:28 pm

Frank Crowell wrote:
> Brandon Gillespie wrote:
> > 
> > I (used) to be on the intermud list and one thing that struck me as
> > annoying was their insistence on re-creating existing protocols that are
> > perfectly capable (just drop them on a different port or on a sub-protocol
> > like VEIL).  For example:
> > 
> I believe that the I3 was developed in response to the interMOO news
> postings and
> the teasing that the LPC world didn't have anything like that.  By the time
> you suggested VEIL, some version of Intermud was already in place. And you
> know how hard it is to change things once there is some momentum. 

Intermud-2 would have been the one that was in place.  In fact, there are quite
a few LPs that still run Intermud-2 stuff.

As for momentum... Intermud-3 as a protocol is by design significantly
different from Intermud-2, so I personally don't think that argument holds.

IMO I believe there was some vaguely MudOS driver-centric interest in the 
development of Intermud-3.  (Hey we have this thing called MUD mode
sockets...but we don't have anything that even remotely uses it...why don't
we make I3 use it!)

> Besides LP people don't talk to MOO/Cold people do they?

Yes we do, we even look at your driver and subscribe to your mailing lists.
(All in the interests of subversion ;).

> I think there is one approach that is interesting, and that is to use a
> gateway server.  
> This means only the gateway has to know I3.  I would much rather sit in
> my Cold world and
> deal with LP-related stuff through channels.  Beats having several
> Windows open like I have now
> and violating the laws of time and space by being at more than one place
> at the same time.  

There is no reason why you couldn't do I3 from Cold.  In fact I've been
thinking about it myself for quite a long time.  A lack of time has prevented
me from pursuing it.  The only remotely tricky bit is being familiar enough
with the MudOS source code to realise how their MUD mode sockets work (why
oh why they had to use MUD mode sockets I'll never know, just to make it
difficult for other drivers is the only reason I can work out).

> > > Intermud3 has the following features:
> > >       -mudlist to show what muds are up, type, address, databases
> > >       -remote tell with emotes
> > 
> > There is no existing protocol which would handle this well.
> But it currently works for I3-- except who, that one really sucks.
> I can solve problems by subscribing to channels and talking to groups
> on other muds or tell them individually.  Naturally most of this
> stuff is for Admins. I started using these channels when I was on the
> old TMI, then at TMI-2.  

So these are the singular protocols for which there is a place for I3 to be
developing its own is the conclusion.

> > Whats wrong with the current 'finger' protocol on port 79?
> The difference is that everything is going through your I3 port, so that 
> finger actually pulls your mud info, not your Unix info.  

I believe Brandon was saying why not use the same protocol as the established
finger protocol rather than implementing your own.  Other muds, or even other
finger clients can then just read the mud finger info via that port using
this established protocol rather than having to know and use the I3 one.

> > 
> > >       -intermud mail (based on the mud name not the address)
> > 
> > One word: SMTP
> I haven't tried it from a mud from either Cold or Moo. 
> Does this go from mud-to -mud or mud-to-OS?

Again, I think Brandon is saying, why not just use the SMTP protocol to
deliver mail rather than again inventing your own.

> > >       -ftp/telnet
> > 
> > uhh
> > 
> Is your comment based on the fact that it's standard for Cold, or
>  why would anyone want it?  I use telnet a lot to connect to other 
> muds so that I can get access to information that I don't have on 
> my server.  Also some conversations is better in virtual presence 
> instead of channels so its a quick popover to the other mud.

I think the comment is...why do I want to be using a telnet client from
within a mud to get to another mud (it is kinda sick ;).  Same for ftp.

> The ftp is useful considering the way that MudOS sees things. 
> The root of a mud ftp is
> 	{yourlib-loc}/lib/ftp

No!  The root of your ftp directory within an LP mudlib is entirely dependent
upon how you setup the ftp server.  In your experience this may be the way
many mudlibs set things up, but it has absolutely nothing to do with the
driver, since it knows nothing whatsoever about your mudlib having an ftp
server, and neither should it.

> This allows people to move code around without needing system access. 
> Otherwise I would have to give a wizard an account on my system and 
> let her ftp to my machine and so on.  Then the files have to be moved 
> to the library area.

Blargh, there are myriad ways to do this, all depending on how your mudlib
handles file permissions.  Again, this is a mudlib detail, and is getting
past I3 discussion.  There is no reason you couldn't indeed write an ftpd in
ColdC just as ftpd's have been written in LPC.  More to the point, by doing
so you can use the standard ftp protocol rather than any hacked up I3 version.

Personally I'm kinda surprised I3 includes an ftp protocol since many LPmuds
run their own ftpd's, whether a hacked version of one of the standard ftpd's
that runs externally to the mud or an internal ftpd written in LPC that uses
a socket implementation such as MudOS or DGD (with the networking package)

> I believe the LP world is trying to go the same was as Cold-- to put 
> a lot of the services in the mud itself without having to go out to 
> the Unix/NT/whatever environments.

The LP world has been going that way for years :)

In fact, it would be good to see more cooperation, since, from an outside and
possibly naive point of view, there seems to be evolution in similar directions
by drivers such as Genesis, MudOS and DGD.

						- Greg