Talk:List of MUD clients

CMUD and zMUD not client-specific?

I reckon CMUD and zMUD shouldn't be listed as using TINTIN for their language, but a client specific language. It uses a TINTIN-like syntax, but it's definitely something different. The Zuggsoft website's support section has loads of info on it.

Also, when CMUD 2.0 comes out its SSH entry will need to be changed from "No" to "Yes", and perhaps a new column for Lua could be added? CMUD will have built-in (not WSH) support for it.

Oh, and is the C column really needed since no clients support it?

84.65.56.183 14:07, 17 July 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The zmud site still claims: 90% compatibility with TINTIN and TINTIN+ text-based clients. [1] The scripting language is clearly tintin derived which is more obvious in earlier versions, so yes, I'd say it's a TINTIN language as much as Mercthievia is a DIKU MUD. (since TINTIN was public domain software that's where the comparison ends) There is also a note under the scripting table that states: Some clients run a significantly modified version of the original TINTIN scripting language, which I added with zScript in mind.

Feel free to remove the C column and add a Lua one, preferably alphabetically sorted between 'Client Specific' and 'Perl'. And I'm sure someone will update the page sooner or later when v2.0 comes out. --Scandum 23:41, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I've made these proposed changes, corrected zMUD's scripting support (it listed many languages as WSH when in fact it only supports JScript and VBScript via WSH, neither of which is in the table), and clarified the TINTIN statement you added to explain that clients running modified versions of TINTIN's scripting language are listed under TINTIN. 90.241.170.33 (talk) 23:56, 9 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

At least theoretically, support for VBScript via WSH implies support for .net, and all the languages that that implies. Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 15:10, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Muby

Just a quick note - I updated some references for muby. I'm a minor dev so I do have some knowledge, but I don't have all of it so I'm leaving some of the items blank. -- Sy / ^(talk) 17:34, 29 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I checked out Muby today.

Regarding Operating Systems: I'd only add Windows if your site offers an installer.

Color Support: Badly Supported, quite obvious when using background colors, it's not an issue on most muds though.

VT100: Server side VT100 is not supported, probably due to the client side VT/ncurses input bar. If the input bar could be disabled some VT options might work.

TELNET: Not supported.

NAWS: Not supported.

EOR: Looks like it's not supported since the client doesn't seem to support telnet negotiations.

GA: Seems to break the client.

ECHO: Not supported.

MXP and MSP are obviously not supported. --Scandum 23:36, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

TELNET -> SSH

I replaced the TELNET option with SSH for the following reasons:

Many editors seemed to mistakenly select telnet.
Most clients claiming to support telnet only support a small subset and generally fail to connect to strict servers, *nix servers being pretty lenient.
In order for telnet to be useful you'd want VT100, Character Mode, NAWS, and various other annoying to implement features to work as well.
Many servers do not allow telnet logins and only accept ssh logins for security reasons.
A client supporting NAWS and ECHO is likely to be able to connect to *nix servers as well.
SSH seems to be a commonly requested feature, probably because some muds support it, while there's little use for most mud clients to connect a telnet server.

Hopefully nobody is offended I changed this without discussing it first. --Scandum 22:06, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, a couple points. First, VT100 is not part of the Telnet specification; that is a terminal emulation. If you mean telnet as in 'connect to a shell,' that is different and I agree you need VT100 or ANSI or some useful terminal emulation. Second point is 'SSH' itself: do you mean SSH as in actual SSH -- OpenSSH and so on -- or just SSL? I know of plenty of games which use SSL encryption, but I do not know of any which use the full SSH protocol. (SSL and SSH are not the same thing.) I suspect you mean SSL, as I know that TinyFugue supports SSL but I have heard nothing about TF supporting actual SSH. I personally have no objection to the changes, but think those two points should be clarified. :) SeattleSparks 23:22, 12 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I was indeed referring to shell access. Text editors require VT100 support to work.

I meant SSH in general to connect to *nix servers. I'm not familiar with any muds that use SSL (could be a mush thing), though I do know muds that forward a ssh port to the mud port. --Scandum 08:08, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I have not seen a mud that uses SSH for encryption/authentication, I have seen a few that use SSL... SSH support requires either a custom implementation of SSH (which is probably non-trivial), or that your mud's user accounts are also user accounts on the machine that is hosting the mud, which is probably not a good idea. SSL support on the other hand can be retrofitted to a mud by using a wrapper, and allows you to continue to use the mud's internal authentication system for access control.

The ability to perform actual telnet option negotiation is required to implement MCCP, and ECHO (for reading passwords), and apart from implementing only a subset of the required telnet options, any mud client that supports negotiating MCCP, or turning off and on local echo for reading your password is also a valid telnet client. I would agree that a supports telnet is uninteresting, because supporting MCCP, NAWS, ECHO, START-TLS, etc. implies supporting at least telnet option negotiation and a subset of telnet options.

I'm not certain what sort of (valid) telnet server would be upset at a mud-client attempting a connection, any behaviour that caused the telnet server to become upset would (as far as I know) class the server as being invalid (according to the RFCs). The only thing I can think of is the client not saying WON'T to any incoming DOs (which I can't find anything about the validity of), because any valid telnet client or server must support the other end saying that they won't do anything other than the default. Martin Rudat(T|@|C) 15:07, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

GMud - scripting?

What scripting does GMUD support? It's listed as a Windows client, so I presume it's the GMud that I know, not some GPL'd software (which would probably be "gmud" not "GMUD" anyway :) ). I've marked it off as "No" on all the scripting entries; they were all either No or blank except "Client-Specific" - if someone knows of a version that does do scripting, feel free to mark that one "Yes" again.

Also - I've written a client, a derivative of GMud, but way more powerful. Would it be a conflict of interest if I mention it here?

Rosuav (talk) 04:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]