Re: how can you protect your mud from your own programmers

From: Ben Cartwright (
Date: 02/16/00

>     > lengthy history snipped out, see previous post <

    Well, I can certainly see where you're coming from, and I respect that.
However, I would still never implement something like that, or do any
(MUD/hobby) coding somewhere where that was implemented, because:

(1) Coding MUDs is a hobby.  No one's getting paid for this. (or at least
they shouldn't be..)
(2) If you make library files and remove the source:
    (a) New coders will be less able to figure out how everything works.
    (b) OLC stuff and DG Script stuff may not be updated frequently, but
what about patches that are still being released?  You'll be unable to
delegate patching up to another coder if the source is stashed away.
    (c) Crashes?  How will gdb or other debugging tools work if there is no
source code available to them?  Pretty much every possible snippet, patch,
etc. is in beta at best.  And it would be unwise to assume any hidden source
that you've written will never cause a crash.
(3) Site moves.  You're creating more trouble for yourself should you ever
have to move the site.

    Of course, in the end, if you feel the need to protect your source from
your own programmers, then you should.  Your solution sounds feasible, and
would be interesting to see implemented, for the sake of seeing it
implemented.  It's one of those wishy-washy gray areas such as logging
passwords or writing a command to read other people's mail.  Trusting people
vs. not trusting them.

--Ben Cartwright

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

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