02 Nov, 2011, Hades_Kane wrote in the 5th comment:
Votes: 0
Looking at the logs, it looks like there is barely any activity on IMC at all.
Is IMC basically dead at this point?
I've thought about adding in some sort of IMC like support for a while now, but are the logs indicative of the true activity level across those channels?
Looking at the logs, it looks like there is barely any activity on IMC at all.
Is IMC basically dead at this point?
I've thought about adding in some sort of IMC like support for a while now, but are the logs indicative of the true activity level across those channels?
Yes to all.
02 Nov, 2011, Hades_Kane wrote in the 7th comment:
Looking at the logs, it looks like there is barely any activity on IMC at all.
Is IMC basically dead at this point?
I've thought about adding in some sort of IMC like support for a while now, but are the logs indicative of the true activity level across those channels?
Yes to all.
Thanks, just double checking :p
02 Nov, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 8th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, MB IMC is basically dead, and has been for, well, a long while now.
If you want to look into intermud, I'd recommend going with I3, which has far more activity.
02 Nov, 2011, Hades_Kane wrote in the 9th comment:
Yes, MB IMC is basically dead, and has been for, well, a long while now.
If you want to look into intermud, I'd recommend going with I3, which has far more activity.
That's the one Cratylus is involved in the Administration of, correct?
02 Nov, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 10th comment:
Votes: 0
Yes, correct, although it's a federated network and administration works rather, ah, differently from the "god" approach that IMC2 uses.
02 Nov, 2011, quixadhal wrote in the 11th comment:
Votes: 0
Just to clarify, I3 currently has a single central server, however the architecture supports having multiple servers administered independantly of one another, and they can be bridged. Individual channels are owned by the MUD that creates them, and so every channel can have its own set of "rules", depending on whomever owns it.
Because the source for an I3 server is readily avilable (it's actually distributed with the Dead Souls mudlib, and is written in LPC), if the evil Cratylus were to suddenly decide to start imposing his will upon, for example, the "discworld_chat" channel, anyone who had an issue with that could simply setup their own I3 server and ensure that everyone who cared about a "Crat-free" discworld channel connected to THEIR server. It could remain bridged to the existing network if desired, however the "evil" admin could only affect traffic going through his own server.
Just to note though, in the three years or so I've been on I3, I've never seen any abuses of power. There are established rules for the most popular channels (intergossip, dchat, intercre), and the person most often being temporarily banned from those channels is quite often the evil administrator himself.
if the evil Cratylus were to suddenly decide to start imposing his will upon, for example, the "discworld_chat" channel, anyone who had an issue with that could simply setup their own I3 server and ensure that everyone who cared about a "Crat-free" discworld channel connected to THEIR server.
Isn't that a bit like saying that if you didn't like mudbytes ran IMC2 you could just download this: http://www.mudbytes.net/file-2706 and set up your own imc2 server…and then convince everyone to use it instead? I'm not sure I see the distinction.
03 Nov, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 13th comment:
Votes: 0
My understanding is that the I3 channel model is more federated, where individual MUDs have more control over channels, whereas in the IMC2 world the server is a much more central authority.
My understanding is that the I3 channel model is more federated, where individual MUDs have more control over channels, whereas in the IMC2 world the server is a much more central authority.
Correct. Muds on i3 can create and admin channels as they wish, banning muds from them if they like, or setting up white lists or blacklists, etc.
Well i been playing with the configuration a bit more, but i still have yet to connect. it continues to tell me… The mud is not currently connected to IMC2. im not sure if the problem is my configuration of maybe im trying to hook up to the wrong network LOL . From what i read here it seems there is a bit of discussion on the state of the network
Isn't that a bit like saying that if you didn't like mudbytes ran IMC2 you could just download this: http://www.mudbytes.net/file-2706 and set up your own imc2 server…and then convince everyone to use it instead? I'm not sure I see the distinction.
The distinction is that IMC2 keeps a rigid set of channels, controlled 100% by the server itself. If you don't like the rules, you can't make a new channel and have your own rules there. I mention setting up your own I3 server mostly for the paranoid who are convinced that the evil admin is always poking their nose into everything… if you really felt that having your own channel wasn't sufficient, you could in fact setup your own server and still link it to the rest of the network.
If you wanted to make your own IMC2 channel, you could in fact setup your own server as well, but good luck getting it bridged to the existing IMC2 network, since your custom channel would not actually be reflected on anyone else's segment.
03 Nov, 2011, Hades_Kane wrote in the 18th comment:
Votes: 0
On the link Crat supplied, I see:
"If your mud is an LP mud, it most likely uses primarily Intermud-3. If your mud is a Diku derivative, it most likely uses primarily IMC2."
Are those just different protocols that can connect to the same network of chats? Or are the protocols synonymous with the network of chats?
03 Nov, 2011, David Haley wrote in the 19th comment:
Votes: 0
The protocols are in theory interoperable, sort of, but in practice the protocols are implemented by separate networks.
Crat has a thingy on I3 that talks to IMC2, so IMC2's ichat is available on I3 (not that anything ever happens there…).
maddog said:
From what i read here it seems there is a bit of discussion on the state of the network
There's no discussion. You can see the logs for yourself. Nothing happens there.
"If your mud is an LP mud, it most likely uses primarily Intermud-3. If your mud is a Diku derivative, it most likely uses primarily IMC2."
Are those just different protocols that can connect to the same network of chats? Or are the protocols synonymous with the network of chats?
Right..this can be a little confusing.
It's easier to think of things as the "MudBytes Network" and the "MudWorld.net" network.
The MudBytes network is run by Kiasyn and Davion and only supports IMC2 connections.
The MudWorld.net network is run by Cratylus and Kalinash and supports IMC2 and i3 connections.
It gets a little confusing because both networks have folks from the Diku andfrom the LP worlds, and for a long time imc2 was almost exclusively Diku and i3 was almost exclusively not Diku, but nowadays there's more compatibility on the client side generally and so it's really not very accurate to make the intermud network distinctions anymore based just on codebase. In fact, last time I looked (prior to the IP switch), MB IMC2 was *mostly* LP.
Note that if a channel has content you don't like, you are certainly not forced to listen to it, and of course it's up to you to establish how your mud controls access to intermud by your imms and/or players. The CratNet itself doesn't try to control stuff like that, it's on you and your mud…whereas on MBnet they do have some mechanisms and traditions along those lines. Or had, anyway.