04 Apr, 2009, Grimble wrote in the 241st comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Keberus said:
UPTIME                      28 Mar 2009 15:41:47

Wouldn't it make more sense to call the variable UPSINCE, maybe it's just me, but usually when I think of uptime I think of 10hrs or 150hrs, not a specific time.

Not necessarily because the variable is meant to communicate the uptime, and using a timestamp is the most efficient way to do so. My crawler page isn't dynamically generated, so that's why I settled for translating the timestamp to a readable date.

I think Kerberus is correct. "uptime" is a commonly used attribute in the computer and networking industry that refers to the elapsed time since the last reboot or restart, and is typically displayed in days/hours/minutes/seconds. What you have is a timestamp of the last reboot or restart. It's just semantics, but there is a difference. I would agree with changing the attribute name (upsince, last_reboot, last_reset, etc) to avoid confusion. Or alternatively, change how you display the attribute to the days/hours/minutes/seconds format.
05 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 242nd comment:
Votes: 0
Makes more sense to change how my crawler page displays the value. It now shows the uptime in days in the same manner the average uptime is displayed.

I can change the spec to make UPTIME report the number of seconds since the boot time if everyone is in for that, in which case muds will have to report current_time - boot_time. It will avoid potential timezone issues.
05 Apr, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 243rd comment:
Votes: 0
There are no timezone issues, since the unix timestamp (which MSSP says UPTIME must be equal to) is UTC. It's the functions that display or format the unix timestamp that do timezone modifications, not time(). There are, however, synchronization issues. If the MUD server is an hour off, you'd get an uptime stat an hour off. If the MUD just reports the amount of time it's been up that problem goes away… and is replaced with the possible issue (depending on how the MUD tracks time) of the uptime being skewed if the server was started when the time was off and the time has since been fixed, or vice versa. Neither is really a big deal IMO.
05 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 244th comment:
Votes: 0
elanthis said:
There are no timezone issues, since the unix timestamp (which MSSP says UPTIME must be equal to) is UTC.

I know, just couldn't think of a better descriptive term.

I think the synchronization issue is primarily caused by daylight saving time. It's hard to get any decent information on it with google, but from what I gathered UTC doesn't have daylight saving time, so I assume people setting their hardware clock during DST and not taking UTC into account is what causes the common 1 hour syncing problem. When I become King of the world DST is one of the things I'm getting rid off.
05 Apr, 2009, elanthis wrote in the 245th comment:
Votes: 0
DST sucks. We're in that one together. Granted, I think timezones suck too – we don't shift the months around as you go from north to south, so why shift the hours around as you go from east to west? ;)

I'm not aware of a common 1 hour synch problem. Most people don't need to adjust their hardware clocks for DST. The OS libraries just know that certain timezones have DST and automatically adjust the offset when DST is in effect. The clock synch issues I've seen happen either from people who just don't set their hardware clock at all or who had their clock go haywire and didn't notice. (Had that happen to a server after a kernel upgrade a few years back, where the new kernel had a bug for our specific hardware that caused the clock to run 3x faster than it should. We only ever noticed because one customer eventually asked why their orders were being placed 18 days in the future.)
13 Apr, 2009, Davion wrote in the 246th comment:
Votes: 0
We're getting ready to launch MSSP for MUD Listings, but so far, everyone supporting MSSP in our database, is missing the Game section of the MSSP fields. Anyways, everyone try to be up-to-date on MSSP fields.
13 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 247th comment:
Votes: 0
Which MSSP are you supporting? (which version of communication, which variables, etc.)
13 Apr, 2009, tphegley wrote in the 248th comment:
Votes: 0
Where do we get the MSSP? I have not seen a link for it and don't want to sift through 17 pages if I don't have too. I have not been following the conversation other then it is being implemented into mudbytes asap and we need it in our muds…
13 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 249th comment:
Votes: 0
Pretty much all muds follow this specification: http://tintin.sourceforge.net/mssp

What fields are you referring to Davion?
13 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 250th comment:
Votes: 0
13 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 251st comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:

Looks like it was edited by people who didn't implement MSSP for their own muds (or intentionally not to spec in the case of Cratylus) with little to no discussion. Some changes look pretty random, and no effort was made to differentiate the variable list from the standard variables from my specification. It's total chaos and prone to edit warring and wild growth, which probably explains why nobody bothered to add them.

It's the main reason I decided on a self hosted protocol page.
13 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 252nd comment:
Votes: 0
If you say so. We've been over this before, I have absolutely no desire to rehash this with you.
13 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 253rd comment:
Votes: 0
David Haley said:
If you say so. We've been over this before, I have absolutely no desire to rehash this with you.


Pretty much. I think it makes more sense to work on community consensus for a community protocol
than have to spend 17 forum pages every time the maintainer of a self hosted page disagrees
with something.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
13 Apr, 2009, David Haley wrote in the 254th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum, tell you what. If you don't like the page posted here, you can add a little note to your self-hosted page explaining that it's the Universal World Canonical version as sanctioned by the World MSSP Committee. Then you can do your thing and we'll do our thing, and everybody stays happy. But if you want to work on the community version here, we'll all play by the rules here – it's a community effort meant to build consensus. If you think that's chaotic and useless, you can play in a different sandbox.
13 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 255th comment:
Votes: 0
Needless to say that people who gave useful constructive criticism have seen their suggestions added instantly. Hopefully Davion will add to the growing list of positive contributions.
13 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 256th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Needless to say that people who gave useful constructive criticism have seen their suggestions added instantly. Hopefully Davion will add to the growing list of positive contributions.


I'm pretty sure plaintext suggestions were constructive.

I'm pretty sure it wasn't added instantly.

Please accept the reality that your obstructionism is tiresome enough to
be a deterrent to doing things your way.

Besides, if the protocol is to be used by the community, it makes sense to
let it be community defined. Seems to me that MSSP doesn't need a Fuehrer.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
13 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 257th comment:
Votes: 0
Cratylus said:
Besides, if the protocol is to be used by the community, it makes sense to
let it be community defined. Seems to me that MSSP doesn't need a Fuehrer.

Anyone who spent any time on Wikipedia knows what community consensus means, that the people with the most friends, time on their hands, and biggest butt plug up their arse call the shots. Which would make David Haley and his fuss buddies the Fuehrer (sic). They're simply encouraging you to troll and make a fool out of yourself while it suits them Crat.
13 Apr, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 258th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
They're simply encouraging you to troll and make a fool out of yourself while it suits them Crat.


I don't need encouragement.
13 Apr, 2009, Guest wrote in the 259th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Anyone who spent any time on Wikipedia knows what community consensus means, that the people with the most friends, time on their hands, and biggest butt plug up their arse call the shots. Which would make David Haley and his fuss buddies the Fuehrer (sic). They're simply encouraging you to troll and make a fool out of yourself while it suits them Crat.


Except in this case, seriously, this isn't a Wikipedia style consensus where domineering admins of the site (that's us btw!) have seized control of some policy discussion and decided for the world what consensus means. It seems pretty clear to me that a lot of people have discussed what should and shouldn't be involved and the article here reflects that. I haven't paid very serious attention to this at all and even I can tell the only one raising your argument about all this crap is you.
13 Apr, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 260th comment:
Votes: 0
And another FUSS guy shows up to add drama who has made no prior contribution whatsoever.

It gets quite obvious who the drama queens are if you briefly skim this thread: http://www.smaugmuds.org/index.php?a=top...

Bunch of girls who prefer to talk smack above doing something constructive, pretty pathetic.
240.0/292