Re: Bombs away [Siteless - Again]

From: StormeRider (
Date: 06/15/00

At 04:23 AM 6/15/00 -0400, Michael Fara wrote:
>In response anyway, I'm not sure why anyone would want to develop a serious
>production MUD under Windows, as it probably would not be very stable
>without lots of special configuration (if we are talking NT here, if talking
>about 95 or 98: forget about the idea) so that it does not crash like it
>normally does... plus the hassle with compiling etc in that kind of
>environment seems just too much. The easiest thing to do would probably be

Complete agreement. Windows is not a good development environment at all,
except for half-way decent web development (ASP etc). Even Cygwin can only
do so much when the operating system isn't POSIX compatible or even attempts
to be.

>to make a totally new MUD from the ground up as to assure it is as stable as
>possible in NT. Of course that is a monumental task for a single programmer,
>so good luck to anyone who has chosen that road.

My question would be... how the heck would you share out the server?
If it was Win2000 with Terminal Server, I could understand, since each
session is
distinct, but while a NT box might serve as a good platform for one person
or one person
who compiles, I can't see how it can even remotely handle two people on it.



StormeRider             "Peace favor your code." 9000 ( 4008 (

     | Ensure that you have read the CircleMUD Mailing List FAQ:  |
     |  |

This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : 04/10/01 PDT