Talk:Comparison of MUD clients
From Mudpedia
Contents |
[edit] SGA
The SGA field determines whether the client is able to switch to character mode by negotiating SGA and ECHO. This is required for playing BBS-es and Roguelikes. I think zMud supports character mode, but not the actual negotiation. --Scandum 22:32, 21 March 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Plugins
I'd prefer plugins to be only used for officially supported/promoted plugins, as in theory every client can be user-enhanced to support anything. Additionally, maybe add a generic TELNET protocol support option to indicate the client can be extended to support various telnet options? --Scandum 11:19, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- How do you define "official" though? Available from the client's official website? Could do that, but then it's definitely a good idea to have an option for open protocol support - except that that doesn't really let you support *all* protocols (eg compression or MXP would need more than just an add-on script, while others might be possible depending on the scripting support of the client). Or there could be a 4th possible value for each field, so you can have 'yes', 'no', 'plugin' (available from the official website) and 'open' (possible to implement yourself via a script or plugin, without needing to modify the source code of the client itself). KaVir 11:58, 9 October 2010 (UTC)
- Available from the client's official website seems like a good guideline, this to avoid listing plugins that are either difficult to find, difficult to use, malfunctioning, mud specific, or incompatible with recent releases. Good point about generic TELNET support being limited, but it ought to cover the possible implementation of msdp/mssp/gmcp/atcp/102/zmp. --Scandum 01:43, 10 October 2010 (UTC)
- On a related note, it's worth mentioning that the official MUSHclient MSP plugin doesn't handle negotiation or any of the sound settings - it does work, but it only does the basic stuff. Of course it's now possible to create a "proper" MSP plugin, but there isn't an official one. Not sure how you want to handle that. KaVir 11:03, 14 October 2010 (UTC)
- Then perhaps just leave it as it is? MSP is a pretty sloppy protocol IMO, the negotiation part is meaningless because (1) the sound triggers are always sent in-band, and (2) simply negotiating MSP doesn't mean the user has the soundpack or wishes to use it, therefore you still need to provide a way to activate sound at the mud end anyway. KaVir 16:36, 17 October 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Structure
There's a few things not quite right here. I think the protocol table could be broken into two sections. One for those supporting Telnet detailing the options they support. I think using notes might be helpful. I'd remove the Unix OS column and make two columns, one for MAC OS9 and OS X. GnomeMud client is the only one that says it will run on Linux and not Unix, but I know Gnome runs on other Unices like Irix, so I would suspect GnomeMud client will as well. I don't know how technical you want to get, but since we aren't under any Wikipedia rules we can get as thorough and detailed as we want to get, no? --Tyche 12:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
Better? Make more sense and room. The only technical things I changed was that SimpleMU does support TTYPE and Pueblo/UE does not support MXP, but does support MCCP. Probably just a mixup in columns. Tyche 14:07, 1 December 2010 (UTC)
- Adding OS9 to the OS list makes sense to me.
- I think for *nix environments the framework used is somewhat relevant information. Could add a table with Cocoa/Console/Gnome/KDE/.NET/etc. I'm not too sure if the current differentiation between BSD, Unix, and Linux is meaningful.
- The TELNET option was meant to indicate clients that have a generic TELNET interface. Mushclient and Zmud have one, allowing the scripting of MSP, MSDP, ZMP, GMCP, etc. I don't think listing whether a client does telnet options or not is all that meaningful, so I'd rather not use it for that. --Scandum 01:21, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- It should probably indicate whether a client supports the Telnet protocol. I'm not sure if there is a good feature term for "exposing Telnet negotiations to scripting". Tyche 19:29, 3 December 2010 (UTC)
- Could go for Telnet events, Telnet triggers, or Telnet handler. Zmud calls them Telnet triggers, in tt++ they're called Telnet events, not sure about Mushclient. --Scandum 10:57, 4 December 2010 (UTC)
[edit] Phone clients
How do you want to handle phone clients? I've just added an "Android" section for now, but should that be converted into a "Mobile" section or something? I don't think there are enough phone clients for it to be worth creating a separate section, but it'd definitely be nice to have them listed. KaVir 12:40, 24 March 2011 (UTC)
- I'd suggest letting it expand, and split it up if we ever end up with over 6 mobile operating systems. --Scandum 02:33, 25 March 2011 (UTC)
[edit] ATCP
Although GMCP is technically the sequal to ATCP, I've encountered a couple of web clients that only support the latter. My MSDP snippet can also use ATCP as a fallback, just as the GMCP muds continue to use ATCP as a fallback, so the protocol may still be of interest to client developers. KaVir 09:36, 11 April 2011 (UTC)
