I intend to do a fairly significant revision of this article, since much of what it discusses is applicable to all sorts of TinyMUD-derived MUD servers, and the distinguishing characteristics of TinyMUSH are not properly discussed. In fact, I will probably move the article to be called "TinyMUSH", since that's the proper name, and leave a redirect from "MUSH"; I haven't yet decided whether to do a separate article on "mudding", or to create a new section within MUD. Squiddhartha 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MUSHING isn't something your really likely to /ever/ find a journal or newspaper article on. This isn't a religion or a company, its not a popular MMO or a scientific fact. Its a fringe group of text-based games. Having the citations note at the top of the page inspires trolling from people who have never mushed before, or have some sort of agenda (as seen below). The citations wikipedia already has are basically the only ones that /exist/. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk)
It is reliable. However designed might be too strong a word. The original TinyMush version was a set of many hacks on top of the original TinyMUD code. Done from a 2400 baud dumpster salvage terminal in an apartment next to the projects in North Hampton Mass. over 3000 miles of early 1990s internet to a machine at UCB. You typed a good fraction of a line of code before it echoed.
The time the company I was working for had hit hard times, so I had little in the way of work or money, but plenty of free time to fill. The work was done on a microvax system at Berkeley which I'd been graciously given an account by a nice guy who've I've met online. Sadly that machine died during an upgrade and that was the end of my role in TinyMush development. Luckily by that time several other people had the code and had started working with it, the first being the TinyTIM mud, which had started out as a TinyMUD. — User:64.81.61.206 02:46, Apr 15, 2005
MUSHes? MUSHs? MUSH? I've seen all three. Which is most correct? Are they all good? More to the point: Should we standardise on one? Most of the internal article usage is singular, or adjective-style plural (MUSH servers), but some other pages use the plural noun form (of MUSH). (According to the Manual of Style, perhaps the 'MUSH server' form is most appropriate... their examples are 'blacks' versus 'black people', etc.) -- Wisq 16:56, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
I fully intend to divide this article up into PennMUSH, TinyMUX, TinyMUSH, RhostMUSH, and so forth someday and leave this page as a glorified disambiguation. As a passionate MUSHer and a passionate pedant, I feel the differences between the four (particularly Rhost, which is one odd beast relative to the other three) need to be spelled out. Ain't got time to do it right now, though. Lord Bob 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Twink Olympics, Andy Awards, and Online Gaming Resource MUSH are worth mentioning in this article. Do they have a place to fit in? Sketch-The-Fox 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's hard for me to see (even under a Pedantic standard) how any one of the four (PennMUSH, TinyMUSH, TinyMUX, or RhostMUSH) could claim the title as One True MUSH Server. TinyMUX and TinyMUSH are near to each other. The distance to PennMUSH is a little further, and parts of RhostMUSH are close to TinyMUX and TinyMUSH, other parts are close to PennMUSH, and other parts are yet further away from either. PennMUSH is neither the most distant relative nor at the center of the constellation. The majority of the distance of PennMUSH from TinyMUX and TinyMUSH is in it's parser (which is a proper top-down parser). This gives it a slightly different grammer, better handling of escapes in certain contexts, and makes it somewhat more vunerable to denial of service attacks. However, this does not set it apart as a separate, better class of MUSH server. So, this question of what makes something a MUSH server is probably a discussion topic in need of having. brazilofmux 22:59, 15, February 2006 (UTC)
Someone building a game will invariably interact with M*U*S*H, OGR, MPUG, or BrazilMUX. In two years, this list will probably change, and I may have left something out of the list, but these places (one is a PennMUSH, the other three are TinyMUXes) are the first line of support for people building MUSH games and using MUSH servers. Perhaps an argument can be made for why these places aren't appropriate for the MUSH topic, but it seems these places should be no more than one step away from this topic. brazilofmux 23:26, 15, February 2006 (UTC)
MU* community has been kept alive through listings services, prominent listing services in the history of MU* need their own article. Some of them are still active. -Dan Mar 2, 2010- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.40.93 ( talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's an actual server. What I get for getting lazy and not doing my research. :P But should it really be on the page regardless? I mean, as far as I can tell it's a not-particularly-notable fork of TinyMUSH. Has it really accomplished anything yet? I haven't heard about it being in something resembling common use, and there are plenty of custom codebases out there based on Tinysomething that justly do not have articles or links. Lord Bob 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Added this for a couple of reasons:
Is Second Life a mush?
Per request on Jlambert 's talk page.
Content must be verifiable, opinions must be sourced to reliable third parties, content must not be promotional in nature. The article has been flagged for over 2 years regarding its poor condition. Removal of the improper content is completely valid. Restoration of improper content is not and can lead to accounts being blocked. 207.69.140.37 ( talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see why this justifies the removal of unsourced opinion-like statements, such as those regarding the ease of coding, but the list of MUSH code variants is trivially verifiable by following the links and would seem encyclopedic in nature. Squiddhartha ( talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously. Some of the above people complaining about links via anonymous ip addresses have clearly never Mushed before. I hate it when people throw peanuts from the peanut gallery when they've never seen a peanut before. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
From WP:EL "What should be linked ... 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work... ... If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate."
So links to sites hosting the various publications of the software that this article is about are appropriate. Jlambert ( talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "cars" doesn't link to "Ford" or "Toyota", but the article on Ford does link to Ford's website, and the article on Toyota links to Toyota's. Squiddhartha ( talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
1) The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2) The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. MUSH does not control the PennMUSH site or any of the others. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.23 ( talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So exactly what's the problem with this statement and it's sources? "The source code for most widely used MUSH servers is open source and available from its current maintainers[8][unreliable source?][9][unreliable source?]." Jlambert ( talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Does MUSHcode actually have any formal name, as opposed to things it's "usually referred to as"? — chaos5023 ( talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Mushcode is as close to a formal name you are going to get. Over at Pennmush dever page, Mushcode is how its refereed as well as softcode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.178.39 ( talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
RhostMUSH is now opensource, the licence seem to be a modified version of the MIT Scheme License. Eddy Beaupré ( talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)
This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||
|
I intend to do a fairly significant revision of this article, since much of what it discusses is applicable to all sorts of TinyMUD-derived MUD servers, and the distinguishing characteristics of TinyMUSH are not properly discussed. In fact, I will probably move the article to be called "TinyMUSH", since that's the proper name, and leave a redirect from "MUSH"; I haven't yet decided whether to do a separate article on "mudding", or to create a new section within MUD. Squiddhartha 14:03, 11 Apr 2005 (UTC)
MUSHING isn't something your really likely to /ever/ find a journal or newspaper article on. This isn't a religion or a company, its not a popular MMO or a scientific fact. Its a fringe group of text-based games. Having the citations note at the top of the page inspires trolling from people who have never mushed before, or have some sort of agenda (as seen below). The citations wikipedia already has are basically the only ones that /exist/. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk)
It is reliable. However designed might be too strong a word. The original TinyMush version was a set of many hacks on top of the original TinyMUD code. Done from a 2400 baud dumpster salvage terminal in an apartment next to the projects in North Hampton Mass. over 3000 miles of early 1990s internet to a machine at UCB. You typed a good fraction of a line of code before it echoed.
The time the company I was working for had hit hard times, so I had little in the way of work or money, but plenty of free time to fill. The work was done on a microvax system at Berkeley which I'd been graciously given an account by a nice guy who've I've met online. Sadly that machine died during an upgrade and that was the end of my role in TinyMush development. Luckily by that time several other people had the code and had started working with it, the first being the TinyTIM mud, which had started out as a TinyMUD. — User:64.81.61.206 02:46, Apr 15, 2005
MUSHes? MUSHs? MUSH? I've seen all three. Which is most correct? Are they all good? More to the point: Should we standardise on one? Most of the internal article usage is singular, or adjective-style plural (MUSH servers), but some other pages use the plural noun form (of MUSH). (According to the Manual of Style, perhaps the 'MUSH server' form is most appropriate... their examples are 'blacks' versus 'black people', etc.) -- Wisq 16:56, 2005 Apr 30 (UTC)
I fully intend to divide this article up into PennMUSH, TinyMUX, TinyMUSH, RhostMUSH, and so forth someday and leave this page as a glorified disambiguation. As a passionate MUSHer and a passionate pedant, I feel the differences between the four (particularly Rhost, which is one odd beast relative to the other three) need to be spelled out. Ain't got time to do it right now, though. Lord Bob 22:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'm wondering if the Twink Olympics, Andy Awards, and Online Gaming Resource MUSH are worth mentioning in this article. Do they have a place to fit in? Sketch-The-Fox 01:46, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
It's hard for me to see (even under a Pedantic standard) how any one of the four (PennMUSH, TinyMUSH, TinyMUX, or RhostMUSH) could claim the title as One True MUSH Server. TinyMUX and TinyMUSH are near to each other. The distance to PennMUSH is a little further, and parts of RhostMUSH are close to TinyMUX and TinyMUSH, other parts are close to PennMUSH, and other parts are yet further away from either. PennMUSH is neither the most distant relative nor at the center of the constellation. The majority of the distance of PennMUSH from TinyMUX and TinyMUSH is in it's parser (which is a proper top-down parser). This gives it a slightly different grammer, better handling of escapes in certain contexts, and makes it somewhat more vunerable to denial of service attacks. However, this does not set it apart as a separate, better class of MUSH server. So, this question of what makes something a MUSH server is probably a discussion topic in need of having. brazilofmux 22:59, 15, February 2006 (UTC)
Someone building a game will invariably interact with M*U*S*H, OGR, MPUG, or BrazilMUX. In two years, this list will probably change, and I may have left something out of the list, but these places (one is a PennMUSH, the other three are TinyMUXes) are the first line of support for people building MUSH games and using MUSH servers. Perhaps an argument can be made for why these places aren't appropriate for the MUSH topic, but it seems these places should be no more than one step away from this topic. brazilofmux 23:26, 15, February 2006 (UTC)
MU* community has been kept alive through listings services, prominent listing services in the history of MU* need their own article. Some of them are still active. -Dan Mar 2, 2010- —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.77.40.93 ( talk) 00:20, 3 March 2010 (UTC)
Okay, it's an actual server. What I get for getting lazy and not doing my research. :P But should it really be on the page regardless? I mean, as far as I can tell it's a not-particularly-notable fork of TinyMUSH. Has it really accomplished anything yet? I haven't heard about it being in something resembling common use, and there are plenty of custom codebases out there based on Tinysomething that justly do not have articles or links. Lord Bob 00:37, 11 May 2006 (UTC)
Added this for a couple of reasons:
Is Second Life a mush?
Per request on Jlambert 's talk page.
Content must be verifiable, opinions must be sourced to reliable third parties, content must not be promotional in nature. The article has been flagged for over 2 years regarding its poor condition. Removal of the improper content is completely valid. Restoration of improper content is not and can lead to accounts being blocked. 207.69.140.37 ( talk) 15:41, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
I can see why this justifies the removal of unsourced opinion-like statements, such as those regarding the ease of coding, but the list of MUSH code variants is trivially verifiable by following the links and would seem encyclopedic in nature. Squiddhartha ( talk) 20:16, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, seriously. Some of the above people complaining about links via anonymous ip addresses have clearly never Mushed before. I hate it when people throw peanuts from the peanut gallery when they've never seen a peanut before. Hewhorulestheworld ( talk) —Preceding undated comment added 14:19, 17 December 2009 (UTC).
From WP:EL "What should be linked ... 2. An article about a book, a musical score, or some other media should link to a site hosting a copy of the work... ... If the subject of the article has more than one official website, then more than one link may be appropriate."
So links to sites hosting the various publications of the software that this article is about are appropriate. Jlambert ( talk) 14:52, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps "cars" doesn't link to "Ford" or "Toyota", but the article on Ford does link to Ford's website, and the article on Toyota links to Toyota's. Squiddhartha ( talk) 15:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
1) The linked content is controlled by the subject (organization or individual person) of the Wikipedia article. 2) The linked content primarily covers the area for which the subject of the article is notable. MUSH does not control the PennMUSH site or any of the others. MM —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.69.140.23 ( talk) 12:59, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
So exactly what's the problem with this statement and it's sources? "The source code for most widely used MUSH servers is open source and available from its current maintainers[8][unreliable source?][9][unreliable source?]." Jlambert ( talk) 14:29, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
Does MUSHcode actually have any formal name, as opposed to things it's "usually referred to as"? — chaos5023 ( talk) 18:47, 9 April 2010 (UTC)
Mushcode is as close to a formal name you are going to get. Over at Pennmush dever page, Mushcode is how its refereed as well as softcode. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.178.39 ( talk) 22:45, 16 June 2010 (UTC)
RhostMUSH is now opensource, the licence seem to be a modified version of the MIT Scheme License. Eddy Beaupré ( talk) 15:29, 9 November 2012 (UTC)