Zugg Software :: View topic

Beginner Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 16 Location: USA

Not to go off on a tangent here, but as a former Java/JSP programmer and current C#/ASP.NET programmer I feel I can speak with some authority on this issue. I will say yes - .NET can be seen (in part) as MS's answer to Java/J2EE. However, .NET is a technology whereby multiple languages can target a common VM, which is not what Java is. Also behind the scenes Java and .NET are 2 different beasts. If .NET didn't provide something other than a Java clone, why are there 2 *nix platforms under development (.GNU and MONO)?

I don't know where you are coming from when you say it is slow and crashy. It is relatively fast when you look at it as a managed environment. A VM based technology will never be as fast as native C, C++, or Assembly, but .NET is fast enough so that it doesn't matter except for performance sensitive pieces of code. MS claims that in most situations .NET managed code is 95% as fast as non-managed C++. If it was slow or crashy MS wouldn't be building Longhorn on top of it. They are moving nearly all or their windows application development to .NET. They are doing away with the win32 api.

You say it is "extremely crap". What about it is?

C# a step backwards? From what? C# Version 2 isn't out yet, but nothing I see about it is a step back. Introducing Generics seems to be a step forward. Developing in C# IMHO is a much smoother experience than Java because I don't (yet) have to deal with multiple brands of the VM or Web server, which is a real pain with Java even if you are developing for the Windows platform only. Also GUI programming is a heck of a lot cleaner in .NET, and of course to the end user it is much faster than Java since it uses the underlying windows API rather than something like swing.

I am not saying that .NET is better than j2EE or C# is better than Java. They both excel in certain areas, and there are things about Java I like better than C#. I am just saying that what you said is simply not true.

But you are correct about C++.NET. I am not a C++ programmer, but most I know feel it got the shaft this time around.

One clear advantage of moving something like ZMUD to .net would be that developers could easily write plugins for ZMUD using any .net language.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Tangents are fun, and get the post count up :P

I'm foremost a C++ programmer, using Borland C++ Builder and MSVC v6 ... so that's probably why I find .NET extremely crap. Simple tasks in Borland I have found extremely complicated in C#.NET (forget C++.NET I installed that then quickly went back to MSVC v6).

Also, my line of work requires some API-level work (for example, bluetooth programming on pocket pc devices)... and C# is as bad (if not worse) than VB for calling API functions. All these [DllImport("coredll.dll")] static extern uint GetCommState( uint hPort, ref DCB lpDCB );

Then you have to actually define the DCB struct as a C# struct, and if you've got structs within structs and such, ugh, it gets really messy.

So maybe .NET is fine for drawing up a textbox and listbox and displaying it in a cross-platform VM, but the Borland VCL based products put the .NET framework to shame and moving Zmud from VCL into .NET would be a big mistake.

Another problem I have with .NET is the developer suite is really slow and has crashed on me several times when working normally (yes I'm running latest patch) whereas Borland C++ Builder has only crashed when I've done something stupid like coded a new component with an accidental infinite loop in it, so when you placed it on your form the infinite loop started executing.

Anyway, *snicker* still wayyyyyyyy off topic ;)

Beginner Joined: 10 Apr 2001 Posts: 16 Location: USA

All-in-all as an enterprise app developer, .NET has been good to me. However, for what you do, .NET would drive me nuts. It is not the right tool, even if you *can* get it to work with lower-level APIs, non .NET dlls etc... I'm all with you there.

Newbie Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 2

Try GGMud. Open source and seems to do everything the 4.x series did for Mac, Linux and Winblows.

http://ggmud.sourceforge.net/

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 1:50 am

Umm, you clearly do not understand either zMUD v4.x nor the GGMud project. Take a closer look. GGMud has even less features than the freeware zMUD 3.62 version. zMUD 4.x already had a mapper, and the scripting language in zMUD 3.62 is far more sophisticated than GGMud. Things like any key being a macro instead of just function keys, the splitwindow for scrollback, etc.

Also, as anyone here knows, with an Open Source project, you are on your own when it comes to support unless you are a developer that is part of the project. Open Source projects come and go, but only zMUD has been here with constant support for 8 years. By constant support I mean the fact that I spent a couple of hours per day for the last 8 years answering email myself.

There are plenty of free MUD clients out there, doesn't matter whether they are open source or not. You get what you pay for. That's fine for some people, but other people care about the support.

So, don't just read the hype on the page about a MUD client. Just because is *says* it does everything zMUD v4.x does doesn't mean it really does. In fact, it doesn't even say this, it just says that the authors *plan*/hope to do everything zMUD v4.x does. Which, considering v4.x is about 4-5 years old, isn't saying a whole lot in my opinion anyway.

Back to the .NET stuff, Rainchild hit it exactly on the head. It's not about converting to a .NET language, it's ALL about the user interface. Anyone can write a script parser or a command language. What takes the time and effort is the graphical user interface. And you don't just easily port a complex VCL application to .NET, or Kylix/Linux, or any other platform. Since .NET has to be platform independant, they have to add another layer between your application and the OS API. So, in .NET, when you are creating visual components, the .NET infrastructure has to convert that into whatever the OS supports. That extra layer just slows down everything with the user interface. The *last* thing we need from zMUD is another layer of slowness and bloat. People already complain that zMUD is to big and bulky (it's not, but that's a different discussion). That's why zMUD will always be better than any cross-platform MUD client...because zMUD can be *highly* optimized to run fast on the Windows API.

It's the focus on .NET that has actually kept me away from upgrading Delphi. I'll continue developing in Delphi 5, which was the most stable version that Borland ever created. All they have done in newer versions is add support for stuff like .NET, which might be fine for corporate application developers, but does nothing to help small application development and ends up just getting in the way of writing efficient applications.

Eew, I'm sorry, I really didn't mean to add to this tangent. This thread *really* should be about Linux and attempts to get zMUD to work under various emulators. Perhaps we should return to that discussion and start a different thread on these other philisophical issues.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 4:28 am

Well, aside from agreeing with Zugg completely on the ggmud issue... I'm going to go back into my existing copy of zMUD 5.55 and see if I can get it running again under linux. I know I had it working with absolutely no issues for a while... (zMUD 6.x I had some issues with as I didn't wanna pay for the crossover plugin just then, had no cash, and the JET layer caused some issues without it)...

All in all, I can't see a reason that zmud 5.55 shouldn't be able to run though, and if we can get a stable, 100% repeatable set of instructions up for people to execute it, it might be worth posting on the website as a download for linux-based users. 5.55 has more than ANY other client out there (that I have used, and I've used quite a few) except newer versions of zmud, so it'd still be a very welcome addition to the Linux community's MUDding issue.

I'll work on that after I get back from Oregon this next coming weekend, and see if I can get a stable and reproduceable install of 5.55 with instructions. If so, I'll be posting the steps here, and seeing if anyone else can reproduce them. If that works, then perhaps a support library article would be in order.

All in all though, I can't think of a reason that 5.55 couldn't boot.

As for booting 6.x or higher into Linux, without the crossover plugin, I've not had much success. Sure, there are solutions like VMWare out there, but they're a lot more memory intensive and laggy that say something that simply provides the layer such as Wine. Granted, being able to get 6.x running in Linux would be a dream, but if we focus on getting 5.55 up and running, and proving that it can be done time and time again, then we may start getting more linux users over into zmud, and from there, find solutions that would allow for us to get the latest versions up and running. Kindof "the more minds the merrier" type effect.

So yeah, just my $0.02, but I'll definately let people know how my testing goes.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 6:03 am

The main problem you will have with v5.55 is the Y2K bug in it. This prevents any reg code issued after Jan 1,2000 from working in v5.55. So, anyone with a newer license code (and ANY eLicense reg code) would not work.

So, other than the old users, and the hackers who managed to crack v5.55, I'm not sure running v5.55 under Linux will do much good for most people.

But as a learning experience for the various emulators, it might be useful.

Seems like it's just a matter of time before the emulators support MDAC correctly. After all, there is a *lot* of software that is starting to use MDAC, and it's really up to the emulators to handle it.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:29 am

Ahhh, true, hadn't thought about that one. Thanks Zugg for that insight before I went off and made an insane man of myself trying to get it up and running again.

Hmmm, yeah, the MDAC does appear to be the biggest issue, I'll have to do some more research into this and see what I can find out. There HAS to be a solution out there that we're just missing somewhere.

Posted: Wed Nov 12, 2003 10:52 am

You could try 6.06 or something though, in that vane.. One of the last to not need MDAC, as far as I remember.. Hmm, or was that the last not to have elicence? Im still running it at work for one of those reasons, anyfish :)

Lady C.

Newbie Joined: 10 Nov 2003 Posts: 2

quote:
Originally posted by Zugg

Umm, you clearly do not understand either zMUD v4.x nor the GGMud project. Take a closer look. GGMud has even less features than the freeware zMUD 3.62 version. zMUD 4.x already had a mapper, and the scripting language in zMUD 3.62 is far more sophisticated than GGMud. Things like any key being a macro instead of just function keys, the splitwindow for scrollback, etc.

Also, as anyone here knows, with an Open Source project, you are on your own when it comes to support unless you are a developer that is part of the project. Open Source projects come and go, but only zMUD has been here with constant support for 8 years. By constant support I mean the fact that I spent a couple of hours per day for the last 8 years answering email myself.

There are plenty of free MUD clients out there, doesn't matter whether they are open source or not. You get what you pay for. That's fine for some people, but other people care about the support.

I've used several Open Source projects for various projects and aspects of my computing "life" and have found the support to be far superior to any that I have received via a paid application. Yours may be different but on the whole the Open Source community seems to care more about the people using the software and less about any revenue.

Upon further investigation I do see what you mean about the lack of features in the GGMud project. Unfortunately this will keep me from using the software for the interim but I forsee its use in the future since I'm migrating all use away from microsoft (including emulators). If the point of "porting" ZMud to Linux is that you are confined to emulating the OS you opted against then the point is, for the most part, lost. I find it highly amusing that games originally written on a *nix style OS must be playing from a Windows one in order to benefit from the most advanced client.

Then again I'm still using a version of the 4.62 client a friend of mine gave me over eight years ago now. I've tried the trial versions of newer releases but found them overly dependent upon system resources for minute tasks which was a major disappointment. Perhaps when time permits I'll take on the endeavor and come up with one that does all of the features you've graciously integrated.

Newbie Joined: 12 May 2002 Posts: 7

*poke Zugg--or anyone who knows, poke them too*

Does anyone know if 6.16 was the last version that required MDAC, etc. to run correctly? If not, which was the last? 6.16 is still on your downloads page in the mirror section, so that'd be real convenient if 6.16 didn't use MDAC :)

Posted: Tue Nov 18, 2003 2:36 am

6.16 still used MDAC for the character and MUD database. The mapper started using MDAC in v6.30. I don't keep old versions of zMUD on this site and the only public version prior to 6.16 was 5.55. Anything in between is a beta version and probably also has an expiration date on it.

Novice Joined: 22 Nov 2000 Posts: 40 Location: USA

Mordrid:

Considered using Kmuddy? www.kmuddy.org
If a Linux client is what you want, that would be the one to give serious thought to.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Kmuddy is crap compared to Zmud anyways... we want to get Zmud working in linux since it's by far the only client worth considering. I mean seriously, if you're not using Zmud, then why are you even bothering mudding? Razz

Newbie Joined: 12 May 2002 Posts: 7

Actually, Zugg, just so ya know, you still have zmud616.exe available openly from the Downloads page--check the bottom where the instructions for setting up a mirror are, zmud616.exe is one of the required files. :)

So anyway, zMud 5.55 didn't use MDAC? Okay. It didn't use eLicense either, though, and I don't have an old key. Oh well :)

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Heh, I wonder if we could con Zugg into re-releasing 5.55 as a 'free' version to replace 3.62... not very likely eh. I wonder if we could bribe him into it instead - ie give some donations and ask him really nicely to allow 5.55 to use the new registration codes instead of the old buggy ones.

Back to the linux topic - I tried installing mandrake 9.2 over the weekend but had some issues starting KDE -- it threw a fit about "could not find the default 'fixed' font" or some such error message. Anyone know what might be causing that?

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

Reading the version history:

5.54 - "Fixed Y2K problem that still didn't allow new registration codes from the year 2000 to be used"

5.55 - "Fixed bug that prevented reg codes from being upgraded automatically"

Was there additional Y2K issues, or was it the one in 5.54 that bugged it out? Because it wasn't until 9 November 2000 that the next public version (6.10) was released... so was there really a 11 month blackout of unable to register 5.55?

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:53 am

v5.55 still had a Y2K bug in it. Also, it was released before eLicense so it has no idea how to understand the reg code format that eLicense uses. So, it's just not going to work for a *lot* of people.

There wasn't a blockout of registrations in 5.55 though. From what I remember, I changed the server that was verifying reg codes at the time (early in the morning of Jan 1st) so that it would handle reg codes for another year. But as soon as 2001 hit, zMUD itself would have started rejecting reg codes.

The problem stems from some hacks that hackers came out with. Back then they were trying to generate their own reg codes. Problem was they didn't generate them properly and zMUD was able to detect them by disabling codes with a certain format. And that format was any code created with a year of 2001 or greater. It was 2000 or greater in 5.54 and I just gave it another year in 5.55.

Posted: Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:59 am

And yes, the 6.16 files are still there because of the mapper problems in v6.62. I didn't want to force everyone to use the new version that I knew had trouble with some maps. But those links are likely to disappear as soon as zMUD 7.0 is out.

And why on earth would I release 5.55 for free? Even if I could (I can't), it would just encourage people to use zMUD for free instead of paying for it, and that's already a problem.

Not to mention the fact that it's the actual compiled code in 5.55 that refuses to accept new reg codes, and to fix that I'd have to change the source for 5.55, which I don't have. I only maintain a single source code for zMUD, and right now that source code is version 6.65a. 5.55 source code no longer exists, so it's not even an option.

I think you guys should be putting your energy into trying to get the emulator guys working with MDAC. As I've said, there is LOTS of Windows software (practically everything from Microsoft) that requires MDAC these days. I'd be pretty embarrased if I was producing an emulator that didn't work with most of the software. Since the specs for MDAC and the OLEDB stuff are public, you wouldn't think it would be *that* hard to get something working.

Newbie Joined: 19 Nov 2003 Posts: 1

quote:
Originally posted by Klaymen

Wine is just a program for your Linux system (stands for WINdows Emulator). You can use it with any distribution. You will probably have to check the package list, but I'm pretty sure that Mandrake comes with a Wine RPM.

Incidently, Mandrake 9.0 has just been released. Haven't tried it myself, but I hear it's very cool.

Uh, wine stands for 'Wine is not an emulator'. Its an emulation layer.

Wizard Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 1551 Location: Australia

N/m I thought that you might still have the old sources but since not, we'll just hafta try'n do the MDAC dance. I'm still running WinXP on my main machine so it's not a big issue for me at the moment but I would like to get rid of windows one day. Maybe the folks that make winex could get Zmud working - I mean if they can get games like 'the sims' working under linux then how hard can it be?

Anyways.

Wanderer Joined: 13 Aug 2001 Posts: 51 Location: USA

Wine is an emulator, no matter what it stands for. Get over it.

Novice Joined: 28 Oct 2001 Posts: 43 Location: USA

wine is NOT an emulator, it translates windows binarys into something the linux kernel can understand and execute. If it were an emulator, it would require an OS to run the applications.

Wanderer Joined: 13 Aug 2001 Posts: 51 Location: USA

If it were an emulator, it would require an OS to run the applications.

Lets see you run wine without an OS.

Does the windows app think it's running on Windows? If yes, then wine is emulating Windows. If no, then how is it running at all?

DICTIONARY: "Emulate": Computer Science. To imitate the function of (another system), as by modifications to hardware or software that allow the imitating system to accept the same data, execute the same programs, and achieve the same results as the imitated system.

Where does it say anything about how it does it? To emulate is to immitate, to equal, to excel. That's exactly what wine does.

GURU Joined: 10 Oct 2000 Posts: 4379 Location: USA

Umm, let's try to get back on topic.