[MUD-Dev] Re: Modular MUD

[quzah]

From: D. B. Brown <dbrown1 at stny.lrun.com>
To: mud-dev at kanga.nu <mud-dev at kanga.nu>

>The performance loss due to Word is minimal, but somewhat more than
>I'd expect (To my dismay, all Office applications seem to suck down
>every availible idle CPU cycle, for reasons unknown to me).

>But, overall, I've found that Win32 platforms are not horribly 
>inferior to Unices for running muds, (Note that I didn't say "not
>inferior", but instead "not horribly inferior") contrary to general
>mailing list opinions.  I do plan to move Jor to a Linux box in the
>immediate to near future, but it certainly isn't hurting on the 95
>box it resides on now.

Unless of course, you actually have to do anything with a floppy drive
in WIN95. Then, you can kiss everything you're doing good-bye until
you're done with the floppy. I have never understood why it totally
pukes when accessing the floppy drive; you loose the ability to do
practically anything else.


>D. B. Brown

>P.S. -- The only real problem I've discovered is in filenames,
>especially the way MudOS interprets the relationship between mud
>objects and the file which spawned them.  Win32 thinks that
>"/U/VII/FOO" under MudOS is the same as "/u/vii/foo", however, MudOS
>thinks that they are seperate... thus one can load each as a seperate
>object.  More of a cause of confusion than anything else, but still a
>problem.

Another thing I hate is file names, what's the point of having
fat32, if you can't use the long name in DOS, and have to instead
use ~1 on everything? Shrug. I guess this is off topic ;)
-Q-


--
MUD-Dev: Advancing an unrealised future.