muq.org · Domains · Slashdot Mirror

Re:Linux has become mainstream, not niche market by Anita+Coney · 2005-01-20 04:03 · Score: 1 · on Centrino-based Linux Laptops

Re:It's not like Microsoft and Apple are standing by petrus4 · 2004-10-29 16:21 · Score: 1 · on An Open Source Tipping Point?

>user's perspectives. Face it, Windows XP was a
>very big and impressive release to the average
>user.

Please define "average user". This to me is a rather vague and ambiguous term, and could cause me to make certain assumptions about the type of user you're talking about, which you may not have intended.

>that there are no weak links.That means that >X.Org, Linux, KDE/GNOME, etc will have to fit
>into each other's design very well and as tightly
>as Windows and MacOS X.

No...The different elements of Linux were initially designed as components...seperate pieces...and this decision was made for a number of reasons that developed over quite a long period of time...X Windows in particular predates Linux. This document may be of relevance if you are interested in learning about the rationale behind modular design, and why monolithic design (the philosophy Microsoft have traditionally used) is normally not as effective.

Microsoft's direction is set, broadly speaking, by people whose skillset is oriented a lot more along the lines of economics and marketing than programming as such. The company exists for two reasons that I have been able to discern:-

(a) To make money via appealing to the largest possible demographic of the computer using population. Technical excellence, despite claims to the contrary, has been repeatedly shown as not being one of Microsoft's priorities. I can also cite numerous pieces of evidence in support of that assertion if you are interested.

(b) To maintain control primarily of the software industry, but also potentially of others...for reasons largely unknown, but presumably a continued desire for generation of massive revenue is a factor. This is a more difficult assertion to support, but Bill Gates has on a few occasions outlined visions of a particular future scenario in which Microsoft has a high degree of control of the areas of both computer software and entertainment/journalistic media.

It also would not be accurate to say that Microsoft have any real advantage over Linux, technical or otherwise...and they are well aware of this, and have mentioned it in profit statements. This document, as well as a collection of documents here outline in high detail the specific challenges Microsoft face in dealing with Linux, and the corporation's long term prognosis cannot be honestly described as positive. I believe that the company's best case scenario within the next decade or so is gradual marginalisation and a decreasing degree of market relevance. Worst case scenario (for them) is bankruptcy, probably ten years or so out at the earliest. This is an unlikely scenario, but given the amount of litigation the company has faced in the last few years, its tremendous losses in the court of public opinion, and the degree to which Windows sales have slowed, (not to mention the most devastating element, which is the lack of a genuinely concrete roadmap after Windows NT 4) it is becoming increasingly possible. The other thing that causes this to be more possible now is the fact that while Microsoft are not developing any substantially new products, (despite the claim at the beginning of your comment, most of the changes to Windows XP were cosmetic at best) the insecurity of Windows XP and the associated necessity to release massive and constant amounts of patches for it means that Microsoft can no longer afford to support older versions of its operating system, despite the fact that many people still use them.

I believe I observed the beginning of Microsoft's downfall in around September/October 1997. Although it may not be immediately obvious to the casual observer, the company is now losing blood...a combination of Linux, its own mistakes/misdeeds, and a recent comparitive lack of direction have left it mortally wounded. I also do not believe, no

The Last Dinosaur by IGnatius+T+Foobar · 2004-07-13 00:42 · Score: 3, Interesting · on Microsoft Expects 1 Billion Windows Users by 2010

I dunno ... a lot can happen in six years. Microsoft claims a billion Windows users by 2010, but one might consider, on the other hand, Jeff Prothero's prediction that by 2010, Windows will be as dead as CP/M which is based on doublings-over-doublings of Linux market share.

Reality, as always, is probably somewhere in between.

Re:TinyFugue by Tyreth · 2003-10-02 13:34 · Score: 1 · on What is a Good Free MUD Client?

It's the one I used, though it doesn't seem to have been updated in the while.

I enjoy it because it's just a console client.

Tinyfugue

Telnet and TinyFugue by fm6 · 2003-09-29 07:05 · Score: 2, Informative · on What is a Good Free MUD Client?

And (to bring us back ontopic), TinyFugue runs under Windows using Cygwin.

Holy teletypes, Batmat! by Anonymous Coward · 2003-09-28 17:05 · Score: 0 · on What is a Good Free MUD Client?

Uh, TinyFugue?

Indeed! This is the finest MUD client you can't buy. It does scripts/triggers/regexp/you-name-it. It beats the hell out of TinTin++ for almost anything IMNSHO.

I've never agreed with Michael on anything before, so this is new to me.

The Problem is that it's Slowing Down by GroundBounce · 2003-08-08 09:33 · Score: 1 · on Free Software as a Public Good

What you say is true, although some of it was originally developed with military uses in mind besides just public good. The problem is that as the commercial software market grew bigger and bigger during the '60s, '70s, and '80s, the government slowly withdrew financial support and left more and more software development in the hands of private companies. What I think the original poster is calling for is a reversal of this trend, which I tend to agree with in many cases.

A really good page which deals partially with the history of this process can be found here.

Here is another good page, also worth a read, which makes a case for government support of open source software.

Advertising for MUQ. by Convergence · 2000-02-05 14:38 · Score: 1 · on Anarchy Online

On this message, I mention MUQ, which is a MUCK/MUD server engine intended to implement almost any type of massively multiplayer world, or at least a lot of the baseline stuff (the persistent database, the mobile code, the concurrent threads, the network IO.)

MUQ is a hammer that can hit a lot of nails, like this one.

Shameless plug for a free version of this: MUQ by Convergence · 2000-02-05 14:01 · Score: 5 · on Anarchy Online

Just a FYI, there's a lonely geek who's been working on a server designed for just these types of games for over 6 years, it just entered beta two months ago. Its been GPL'ed since the beginning. So go check out MUQ, located at www.muq.org.

Muq is a MUCK/MUD server engine (secureity, network, database storage, and job support) that has (so far) 3 language frontends to it: a FORTH-like (MUF), a lisp-like, and a C-like (MUC). The C-frontend was created in a couple of weeks. Or you can create your own compiler front ends. It has a very optimized inner loop and is intended for huge databases of small objects. So all the internal operations are very very lightweight.

It also has an OO scheme to die for, as it shamelessly stole CLOS from LISP... I think it even has a partial implementation of MOP. (Meta Object Protocal, lisp-heads will know that this lets you completely redefine your OO system if you need to.)

I checked out the new version from 4 months ago and almost blew chunks, no muck server engine should rotate the OpenGL teapot as part of its self-tests. :) It's gotten better since.

MUQ has exportable encryption support. (twofish and diffe-hellman, I believe) It is turning into the emacs of MUCK-servers. With luck, somebody may even implement emacs on top of it. :)

It has an implementation of a distributed-world packaged in the distribution, but that is still buggy and highly undocumented. But you can implement your own world on top of the core engine, up to and including OpenGL.

Eventually, when it gets GTK/QT integration, you'll run it as both the server and client, one batch of interpreted software runs on and implements the world-server, or the world-server farm, and another batch of code runs locally, integrating with OpenGL and GTK/QT interfaces to run the GUI frontend.

As with most opensource projects, and especially one with a scope this big, as big as emacs, it needs volunteers and support. And the author deserves some gratification as his child has been in developer-releases for 6 years before last december's beta-release, with his work almost unknown for that entire period.

So grab the source, and design your own giant world on top of MUQ