Gammon Forum : MUSHclient : General : MUSHclient now Freeware

Register forum user name Search FAQ

Gammon Forum

Notice: Any messages purporting to come from this site telling you that your password has expired, or that you need to "verify" your details, making threats, or asking for money, are spam. We do not email users with any such messages. If you have lost your password you can obtain a new one by using the password reset link.

Entire forum

MUSHclient

General

MUSHclient now Freeware

MUSHclient now Freeware

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Pages: 1 2 3

Posted by

Dave Australia (93 posts)

Date

Sat 31 Mar 2007 08:34 AM (UTC)

Message

Just wanted to say thanks for all your hard work over the years, Nick.

MUSHclient is by far the most simple, efficient, non-bloated MUD client I have ever had the pleasure of using. I paid for my MUSHclient registration, and even though text-based MUDs seem to be a dying breed, have never regretted it.

I think Open Source would suit MUSHclient well, there is a LOT that fellow programmers could learn from it. :)

Thanks mate!

Dave

Posted by

David Haley USA (3,881 posts)

Date

Reply #1 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 11:55 AM (UTC)

Message

Echo. Nothing much to add to what Dave said -- thanks for the excellent client!

David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone

http://david.the-haleys.org

Posted by

Zeno USA (2,871 posts)

Date

Reply #2 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 04:42 PM (UTC)

Amended on Sat 31 Mar 2007 04:47 PM (UTC) by Zeno

Message

I concur! Thank you so much, Nick! The best MUD client is now free. :D

Plans to make it open source is awesome as well, I've always been looking for a MUD client to modify with my own theme for my MUD.

Zeno McDohl,
Owner of Bleached InuYasha Galaxy
http://www.biyg.org

Posted by

Poromenos Greece (1,037 posts)

Date

Reply #3 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 07:16 PM (UTC)

Message

I think this decision is best, being shareware was probably the only obstacle to the spread of MC. The best MUD client also being open source, I don't see much competition for that.

Vidi, Vici, Veni.
http://porocrom.poromenos.org/ Read it!

Posted by

Tsunami USA (204 posts)

Date

Reply #4 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 09:55 PM (UTC)

Message

Thanks Nick! Still glad I registered though. Your post wasn't entirely clear on whether you were planning to cut back on the amount of time you spend developing/supporting MUSHclient though? More power to you if you are, you've given us more than enough, but I was wondering what our plans were! -Tsunami

Posted by

Shadowfyr USA (1,787 posts)

Date

Reply #5 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 10:19 PM (UTC)

Message

Ok.. Lets try to see if, once it is OSS, we keep it from forking. POVRay's license, which some twits insist isn't free, tend to provide better control over what happens to the application once its out in the wild. At most, there are:

1. Official version incorporating the best and most stable features, with an expectation they will get more stable over time.

2. MegaPOV, which is a catch all for new ideas, sort of like what the main OSS projects tend to end up being, but supported by a seperate team, since its not part of the official spec.

3. A very small number of specialty versions, usually only with 1-2 major changes or additions, which if they prove useful the tier 2 team will fit into MegaPOV, then later, if its stable enough and doesn't break the main teams intent for the application, will get incorporated there too.

In the case of Mushclient, it might even be possible to use the existing system that has distinct steps in it, to develop optional dlls that provide function. In other words, if someone developed GUI features, those could be usable "if" you download and install the module for it, but the standard client would only grow by the amount needed to check for the dll and support those commands "if" its installed. That solves one huge complaint we already have, bloat. If the client itself doesn't bloat, but *large* features get incorporated as optional modules, its not as huge of a problem. It basically becomes a class of plugins that provide pre-defined function(s), that are then accessable from the script system, as though they where built into the client. If its missing, and something trys to do, "world.newobject("blah")", but the module isn't installed, you get an error. Simple as that.

Well, maybe not simple, but with the source open, there are definitely some new options we will have available for working these things out.

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (23,045 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #6 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 11:21 PM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

Your post wasn't entirely clear on whether you were planning to cut back on the amount of time you spend developing/supporting MUSHclient though?

I regard it as a fairly stable program right now, if there is a problem that I can solve simply because of my knowledge of the application, I probably will.

Things like Shadowfyr is talking about - adding support for events in DLLs (or COM objects) is more likely to be a case of "if you can make it work, fine!".

There are potential pitfalls in making changes, generally I have tried to anticipate those, and put comments in the code to indicate why things are being done a certain way.

I will be a little less likely to support someone who adds a "cool new feature" but " ... unfortunately the client crashes a lot now".

The sort of things people could usefully do is improve the configuration screens for example, this would not change core functionality, but make the program easier to use.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Maxhrk USA (76 posts)

Date

Reply #7 on Sat 31 Mar 2007 11:22 PM (UTC)

Message

you know i have wet dream where i can port mushclient to linux natively.

oh well... too bad i am not expert at C++ coding. heh.

Posted by

Shaun Biggs USA (644 posts)

Date

Reply #8 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 12:15 AM (UTC)

Message

Quote:

you know i have wet dream where i can port mushclient to linux natively.

Well, the main problem here is that MUSHclient uses MFC. It's not that MFC is horrible or anything, just that Microsoft doesn't exactly release linux gui libraries. Porting it to QT or GTK is possible, but will require a decent reworking of a lot of code. That being said, I think I'm going to try doing just that until it either works, or I get frustrated enough to give up.

What I'm looking forward to the most though is just looking at the source code. MC is an extremely good program, and I'd like to take a look at how Nick pulled off a lot of the great things he has done.

It is much easier to fight for one's ideals than to live up to them.

Posted by

David Haley USA (3,881 posts)

Date

Reply #9 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 12:35 AM (UTC)

Message

I'm not sure there's that much of a problem in forking. It's just how the FL/OSS world works. And frankly large-scale forking doesn't really happen that often especially for small programs.

What would be nice would be a clear structure for the "official" source repository. Whether Nick himself manages it or he designates community members is an interesting question, but what really matters is that it be clear where exactly one goes to get the "real thing".

I'm looking at some distributed version control systems like bazaar-vcs.org and have been extremely impressed; it seems like exactly what would be appropriate for us.

I don't like the plugin idea for such sweeping changes because it is very hard to push too much into "modules". It's really easy to want to make your application completely modular until you actually start doing it. I mean, sure, I like the idea of modules, I'm just not sure how much work should go into it.

One thing I've admired about Nick's dislike for bloat is not that he dislikes bloat per se. My impression is that he tries to figure out what really is the problem being solved, and tries to see what the minimal solution to it is. Instead of throwing a 500k DLL at the problem he works to identify the precise need that is lacking and satisfy just that. That restraint, I find, is one of the reasons why MUSHclient is so clean.

David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone

http://david.the-haleys.org

Posted by

Onoitsu2 USA (248 posts)

Date

Reply #10 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 04:53 AM (UTC)

Message

I would like to see the ability to use addons to significantly add features to the mushclient program. Shadowfyr's idea of making an additional GUI with buttons and other things. But as previously stated the messages and other message issues are quite possible. On the other hand with the source, one could add something similar to zMud's button bar, perhaps not with its usage being as dynamic, but this will allow gauges and other things. Multi-State Buttons, Slide Bars, Up-Down Tickers, and MANY other controls are VERY possible. Also someone might perhaps implement the ability to re-order controls via a settings window, like MANY MS programs and others a well use to set where controls are located. Mushclient already has the ability to re-order the toolbars, but not the items ON the toolbars, so it is nearly there, just need to implement a little more code to complete the task.

Again to follow the previous statements ...

YOU ROCK NICK!!!!!!!!

Laterzzz,
Onoitsu2

Posted by

Nick Gammon Australia (23,045 posts)

bio Forum Administrator

Date

Reply #11 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 05:53 AM (UTC)

Message

Thank you for the complimentary remarks, everyone! :-)

I have released now a version that does not rely upon the proprietary spell checker, so the door is open for the release of the source code.

Any suggestions about a suitable license wording? Shadowfyr raises an interesting point about "retaining control", although I am not overly concerned about that. Basically I have in mind:

Anyone can make changes as they see fit
Those changes could be released for others to incorporate themselves
Precompiled amended versions could be distributed (eg. like Zeno suggested in another thread)
I am not sure I want people to make some (or no) changes and then attempt to sell the resulting version. The whole idea is that the client should be freely available.

There are various license flavours, although I don't pretend to be an expert. I think the GPL (GNU Public License) rather obsessively tries to stop people deriving works without releasing the source code for everything. I am not sure that is necessary totally. OTOH, Lua's license is pretty liberal, because they recognise that you may want to incorporate Lua into proprietary software.

I should point out, that as I have said many times, MUSHclient was built using MFC libraries. Thus, unless you have a commercial copy of the Microsoft C++ compiler (itself pretty industry standard I suppose), you won't be able to successfully compile it.

Also, I don't have the latest version of the MS C++ compiler, I can't say for sure how well it will compile if you have a recent version.

- Nick Gammon

www.gammon.com.au, www.mushclient.com

Posted by

Shaun Biggs USA (644 posts)

Date

Reply #12 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 06:08 AM (UTC)

Message

Off the top of my head, I'd suggest the MIT license. I don't remember the details off the top of my head, but I know that it allows for release of binaries without the source. I'm not sure if it restricts the sale of new versions though. I know I have a few articles somewhere in my bookcase I can look through.

It is much easier to fight for one's ideals than to live up to them.

Posted by

David Haley USA (3,881 posts)

Date

Reply #13 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 06:11 AM (UTC)

Message

I use a modified version of the BSD license for my software. (The BSD license is quite similar to the MIT license.) The modification is that you cannot sell it without my permission. I think something similar for you would work. The BSD/MIT licenses do not, themselves, forbid resale of your work. And the GPL is, as you say, somewhat obsessive about a few things.

This is what I use:
http://david.the-haleys.org/dev/shared-string/LICENSE

David Haley aka Ksilyan
Head Programmer,
Legends of the Darkstone

http://david.the-haleys.org

Posted by

Onoitsu2 USA (248 posts)

Date

Reply #14 on Sun 01 Apr 2007 09:20 AM (UTC)

Message

You stated that you do not have the CURRENT version of the C++ compiler, what version DO you use. I have Visual Studio 6, which is VB 6, VC 6, FoxPro, and a few other things ...

As far as I am aware that is the latest version PRIOR to .NET's existence.

I do hope that I will be able to compile it using that :)

Laterzzz,
Onoitsu2

The dates and times for posts above are shown in Universal Co-ordinated Time (UTC).

To show them in your local time you can join the forum, and then set the 'time correction' field in your profile to the number of hours difference between your location and UTC time.

89,009 views.

This is page 1, subject is 3 pages long: 1 2 3

It is now over 60 days since the last post. This thread is closed. Refresh page

Go to topic: Search the forum

Quick links: MUSHclient. MUSHclient help. Forum shortcuts. Posting templates. Lua modules. Lua documentation.

Information and images on this site are licensed under the Creative Commons Attribution 3.0 Australia License unless stated otherwise.

Comments to: Gammon Software support
Forum RSS feed ( https://gammon.com.au/rss/forum.xml )