13 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 21st comment:
Votes: 0
The dotted line indicates inspiration, the regular line represents a code derivative.
13 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 22nd comment:
Votes: 0
I agree with Silenus's Foundation comments, tho the Foundation
libs are really kinda odd ducks and you could interpret their
provenance both ways. IMO.

I have to disagree slightly in that while Lima and lpuni are code "clean"
of other libs' stuff, they shared developers with other libs and design
principles (explicitly so in some cases), in a way that makes them in my mind
ineligible for "completely separate" status, but rather "inspired by".

If I were to make a change it would be to make the
Lima "inspired by" dotted line lead to TMI, not TMI-2. The
lpuni dotted line does belong on TMI-2 though.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
13 Oct, 2009, Silenus wrote in the 23rd comment:
Votes: 0
I was actually a coder on NM during this period I am pretty sure about the order(w.r.t Foundation and NM3 NMIV). I cannot really say when it comes to lpuni and Tacitus, Crat probably knows more about it than I do- however for Lima you could argue that it arose (in some sense) as kind of a critique of TMI-2 because the design is quite different. I also thought the project leads for TMI-2 were distinct from those that led the Lima project (Beek, Deathblade and Rust) though all three of them (as would a lot of us) would hang out on TMI-2. I thought the main developers for TMI-2 were people like Budha and Mobydick etc. but my memory could be hazy it was a long time ago.
13 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 24th comment:
Votes: 0
Okay, I gave it another update. Nightmare IV derives from Nightmare II right, or did I read that wrong?

It's somewhat alphabetically ordered at the moment.
13 Oct, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 25th comment:
Votes: 0
NannyLib and NewMoon are publicly available.
There is of course at least one mud running NannyLib, so it's probably not obscure.
13 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 26th comment:
Votes: 0
Silenus said:
I was actually a coder on NM during this period I am pretty sure about the order(w.r.t Foundation and NM3 NMIV)


I'll defer to your recollection on this, then, since I wasn't
involved in that dev.

Silenus said:
I cannot really say when it comes to lpuni and Tacitus, Crat probably knows more about it than I do- however for Lima you could argue that it arose (in some sense) as kind of a critique of TMI-2 because the design is quite different.


I do remember when Tacitus got started on a new lib, and the
topic of derivation and project name was fairly thoroughly
examined at the time, in typical mud conflict-resolution fashion.

In the end he decided to depart from the name TMI, but keep
the general principles he liked and the overall look-and-feel
of the code (under_scores rather than CamelCase, for example).
However the project was meant to have original code, and though
I haven't audited it or anything, it does seem to be so, from
what I've seen.

Silenus said:
I also thought the project leads for TMI-2 were distinct from those that led the Lima project (Beek, Deathblade and Rust) though all three of them (as would a lot of us) would hang out on TMI-2. I thought the main developers for TMI-2 were people like Budha and Mobydick etc. but my memory could be hazy it was a long time ago.


My understanding is that the leads on TMI-2 were Leto, Blue, and Rust,
and for Lima it was Deathblade, Beek, and Rust. I'm sure many
prominent (in the LP world anyway) names contributed substantially,
but those are the names that seem to keep coming up as deciders of
what went in and what stayed out.

Scandum said:
Okay, I gave it another update. Nightmare IV derives from Nightmare II right, or did I read that wrong?


Nightmare 3 to Nightmare IV.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net

EDIT: transposed Blue and Beek
13 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 27th comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
NannyLib and NewMoon are publicly available.
There is of course at least one mud running NannyLib, so it's probably not obscure.

http://newmoon.mizerai.com/ says new moon is non public (also couldn't find a download), and googling for nannylib shows a nannylib.tgz up for download on two ancient ftp sites.
13 Oct, 2009, Wodan wrote in the 28th comment:
Votes: 0
Discworld does not derive from TMI. It was written from scratch and is older than TMI :)
13 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 29th comment:
Votes: 0
Discworld runs FluffOS though, which is derived from MudOS?
13 Oct, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 30th comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
Tyche said:
NannyLib and NewMoon are publicly available.
There is of course at least one mud running NannyLib, so it's probably not obscure.

http://newmoon.mizerai.com/ says new moon is non public (also couldn't find a download), and googling for nannylib shows a nannylib.tgz up for download on two ancient ftp sites.


I looked at it and it's apparently a different New Moon. The NewMoon mudlib I have dates from 1994 and a different author.
ftp://sourcery.dyndns.org/archive/servers/lp/m...

Scandum said:
Discworld runs FluffOS though, which is derived from MudOS?


Correct but that has little to do with the mudlib. The Discworld mudlib even preceded MudOS and was very likely originally developed on LPMud 2.4.5 driver. And then they moved to MudOS and then added features into MudOS driver that became FluffOS. The current Discworld mudlib very likely won't run on anything but FluffOS.

The analogy here is not altogether different from writing a C64 BASIC mudlib, moving it to GW-BASIC and then to BlitzBasic. The LPC language doesn't differ as much on the drivers as the functions available (stdlib?) does though. So it's not as hard as moving from LPC driver to driver as Basic is.
14 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 31st comment:
Votes: 0
Tyche said:
I looked at it and it's apparently a different New Moon. The NewMoon mudlib I have dates from 1994 and a different author.
ftp://sourcery.dyndns.org/archive/servers/lp/m...

Looks like it's supposed to run on ms-dos as well.

I'm wondering if one of the LP guys know if the newmoon and nanny lib are worth adding, I'd rather not add junk libs that have no historic or technological value.

Another lib I have difficulty placing is Amylaar, I've seen the name show up frequently but can't quite place it's importance. It looks like it's the branch leading to LDMud? And in that case, would Heaven7, OSB mudlib, and Morgengrauen be derived / inspired from LDMud? Also, does LDMud ship with a small but notable mudlib?

Tyche said:
Correct but that has little to do with the mudlib. The Discworld mudlib even preceded MudOS and was very likely originally developed on LPMud 2.4.5 driver. And then they moved to MudOS and then added features into MudOS driver that became FluffOS. The current Discworld mudlib very likely won't run on anything but FluffOS.

Makes sense, from what I gathered MudOS wasn't too different syntactically.

Link to the tree: http://www.mudpedia.org/wiki/LPMudlib_fa...
14 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 32nd comment:
Votes: 0
Nanny is historically meaningful, but not very relevant these days. I'd add
it on general principle, though it's understandable if you don't.

Amylaar is the name for the thing directly between "original" LP and LD.
It's typically considered a driver's name more than a lib's name.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
14 Oct, 2009, Tyche wrote in the 33rd comment:
Votes: 0
Scandum said:
It looks like it's the branch leading to LDMud? And in that case, would Heaven7, OSB mudlib, and Morgengrauen be derived / inspired from LDMud?


No again the analogy of mudlibs being derived or inspired from various LP drivers would be like Diku/Merc/ROM muds being inspired or derived from various C compilers. Anyway, Heaven7 mudlib ran on the Amylaar driver which was a LPMud 3.2.x branch. MorgenGrauen mudlib did as well. LDMud, which is still being maintained, is based on the last Amylaar driver. So Heaven7 and MorgenGrauen with some modifications run on it as well.

Scandum said:
Also, does LDMud ship with a small but notable mudlib?


The OSB mudlib was written specifically for the LDMud driver.
Also you'll find a small mudlib called Minilib which was shipped with the Amylaar driver.

I don't know what you consider significant. The most significant discovery I made when researching LP muds was the whole LP MUD timeline and history was backdated a year.
15 Oct, 2009, quixadhal wrote in the 34th comment:
Votes: 0
It's perhaps helpful to think of the driver as being a dialect of LPC, and the mudlib as being the game system itself. Not quite accurate, but helpful.

Consider the difference between Commodore 64 BASIC, QuickBASIC for the PC, Visual Basic 5 for Windows, and Visual Basic .NET. They are all BASIC, but code written for one will not generally run in another without a good deal of rewriting.
15 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 35th comment:
Votes: 0
I've seen a number of people compare the LPMud drivers with programming languages (to the point of claiming, for example, that their MudOS LPMud is actually 'custom' - i.e., written from scratch). Is that really the case? If so, why would anyone bother licencing DGD for example? If people like LPC, why not just write their mud in Pike?
15 Oct, 2009, shasarak wrote in the 36th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
If so, why would anyone bother licencing DGD for example?

One reason for licensing DGD is that the licence allows commercial MUDs while that of many other LP drivers doesn't.
15 Oct, 2009, KaVir wrote in the 37th comment:
Votes: 0
But what I mean is, if the driver is little more than a programming language, why would you use an LPMud driver instead of just writing your game in Pike?
15 Oct, 2009, Scandum wrote in the 38th comment:
Votes: 0
It's probably the existing Mudlibs that make LPC attractive.
15 Oct, 2009, Runter wrote in the 39th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But what I mean is, if the driver is little more than a programming language, why would you use an LPMud driver instead of just writing your game in Pike?


A question I've asked more than once.
15 Oct, 2009, Cratylus wrote in the 40th comment:
Votes: 0
KaVir said:
But what I mean is, if the driver is little more than a programming language, why would you use an LPMud driver instead of just writing your game in Pike?


Pike's a pain in the ass, basically. That's really it. It's missing convenient
features that are standard in other implementations of LPC. Guy I know
(rilly smart guy) plays around with it, I can't tell if his hobby is getting
Pike to run a mud or bitching about getting Pike to run a mud.

-Crat
http://lpmuds.net
20.0/99