 | | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) What about using a telnet socket-based talker? Telnetting to lugnet.com:4000 or whatever is simpler for most people than finding and setting up an irc cliet. I tend to find that telnet chat rooms are more personal and friendly than irc - (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) You can emote on IRC too! And I doubt Todd really wants to write a MUSH! (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Maybe I just haven't had good experiences of IRC, which is why I feel talkers are friendlier :) (...) True :) What I had in mind though was something like NUTS ((URL) or ew-too. These usually compile out of the archive and don't require much (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
On Wed, 7 Oct 1998 14:47:09 GMT, Richard Franks <richard@__no_spam_p...pider.com> wrote: What about using a telnet socket-based talker? Telnetting to (...) This is what I meant about MUSHes. IF I go somewhere to talk, it's going to be a MUSH 98 (...) (26 years ago, 7-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Never heard of these. What are they? And what is the draw for them over standard IRC? (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) A MUSH is a game that you telnet to. Usually, they are centered around a specific theme (most of those I played were Pern, though I started on a Star Trek theme one) There is more than one background code base that people use to create these (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) You know the old text-adventure games? It's like that, except many people are connected at once and you can all talk to each other. The MUD (Multi-User Dungeon) variety usually involves some pseudo-D&D personal statistics and a hack&slash (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Hrmmm. Interesting. I guess, in a sense, you could say that our private IRC network ends up having all of the chat benefits you mention without the game aspect. I know what you mean about not being too impressed by just general IRC folks. I (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) The game aspect is entirely optional, and is not needed or relevant for a Lego chat. I would suggest that a talker would be sufficent (no creatures or objects) as this would also be lighter on system resources. I guess private IRC is more (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Although it'd be fun to have a lego-based MOO (MUD/MUSH Object Oriented, or something like that) where you could build your own virtual lego houses.... (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Well yeah :) You could have a Lego-People running about and everyone beats up poor Timmy. But if LUGNET were to host it then a talker might be less work. Is a MUSH more self-regulating where people are allowed to create a certain #objects and (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
If there arises a working, populated Lego chat, please tell me. I don't have the time to follow this thread, but yet I don't want to miss the chatting. /Tore (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
Richard Franks wrote in message <361CCF8D.873@__no_s...er.com>... (...) This is also a drawback (and I can say this with experience, after developing unix bbs software which was mostly used as a talker in its heyday (1994 or so). to see it telnet to (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Urgh! The reason that site has lag is because each individual character is sent, processed and returned - that is a very inefficient mechanism - say typing one line would generate at least 160 packets going across the network! The way most (...) (26 years ago, 8-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
Richard Franks <richard@__no_spam_p...pider.com> wrote in message 361D3CC9.3F87@__no_s...der.com... (...) heyday (...) Talkers of the type which you are talking about are very hard to use unless you use a special telnet client such as tinyfugue. (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) That's not true. Linemode is a standard telnet option and should be supported by any good telnet client. See RFC #1184. A lot of places don't use this so that you don't have to press enter after every command. Which is generally a poor (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Not necessarily. I played on SouCon MUSH and PernMUSH for MONTHS using telnet only. (It was at least a year before I had access to tf) Sure, now that I have tf I would be hard-pressed to go back to plain telnet. But it CAN be done. ANd it is (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) I dunno. Many (most?) ISPs these days don't even give out shell accounts, let alone being cool enough to install useful programs.... (...) :) Yes, of course Unix has it by default. The telnet client that comes with Win95 is utter crap -- (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
Matthew Miller <mattdm@mattdm.org> wrote in message slrn71t391.8c1.mattd....bu.edu... (...) unless (...) Yes, I know this. But using standard telnet with a talk system in linemode means that other peoples text will interrupt your typing. I (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) In Your Opinion IMO, WIn95's telnet does EVERYTHING I need it to. It is better than most, in fact. It has copy+paste capability, and logging. :) I don't know what more is needed. (I've never sent anything over telnet that needs encryption. If (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
Perhaps a Princess.... <sarah@eskimo.com> wrote in message 36208bba.79678367@20....63.236... (...) Many ISPs these days don't have shell accounts. Many aren't even based on Unix. The largest ISPs in the country (AOL, Worldnet, MSN, Compuserve, etc) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Well. It's not a baseless opinion. It has very limited terminal emulation capability, has trouble understanding that a standard terminal screen size is 80x25, doesn't let you create an address book.... Not to mention simple aesthetic issues (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) *shrug* The argument is probably moot. Likely, I would not use an IRC server. There is not much ttle more probability that I would use a talker either. I simply don't have the time for either. News provides me plenty of reason to talk as is :) (...) (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Yes I don't encrypt my password when I telnet in from other sites either. Sarah (26 years ago, 9-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) My head is starting to spin with all this info... Could someone who's experienced with all or most of these be really nice and post a summary (starting a new thread) where things are listed in an advantages/disadvantes format? News vs. IRC vs. (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) I started to do this, but really, it can all be condensed to this, IMHO. Any of the more advanced systems will consume more of your time than this is worth -- I'd rather you concentrate your effort on other parts of LUGnet. If there's a (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) That's a good summary, thanks... --Todd (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Ditto. All this talk about "talkers" vs "IRC clients" is kinda silly to me. I think there is no denying that IRC is more popular and more common. I don't know everything about the net, but I've played on my share of MUD's (always found them (...) (26 years ago, 10-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) But I think it's good to have a coherent summary on record somewhere for future reference. Plus, having a coherent summary "in the back of the brain" is always good for long-term synergy of ideas. That's the jist of asking... --Todd (26 years ago, 11-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) For address book, do you mean a list of servers? Win95 telnet compiles this automatically as you visit servers. You can change the colors by going to Terminal | Preferences. Background Color has its own button, foreground color is changed in (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
(...) Uh... Hyperterminal replaces Terminal in Win 3.x, NOT telnet.exe And yes, Hyperterminal works MUCH better than Terminal. I had to buy ProComm Plus in Win 3.X In Win95, I just used Hyperterminal until I finally went SLIP/PPP (forget which I (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general)
|
| |
| | Re: LUGNet Chat
|
|
[Followup set to lugnet.off-topic.debate] (...) An address book is better than that. Win95 just remembers where you've been last. A real address book will let you specify which hosts to save, and lets you do things like specify different options (...) (26 years ago, 12-Oct-98, to lugnet.admin.general, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
