Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
I see some MajorBBS packages for linux, but before I go too far down this path, has anyone attempted to host WG or MajorBBS with Majormud from a command-line-only linux server?
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
There was a Worldgroup 1.0 version for Unix which is floating around, but haven't messed with it myself.
I've been testing Worldgroup 1 & 2 (DOS) against VirtualBox, VMWare, and DosBox, and they all have different problems. Mostly networking and response times. Some straight up crashing.
You're probably better off trying DOSEMU for linux with Worldgroup 2.0 / MajorMUD. It's something I'm looking forward to trying. Worldgroup 1.0 doesn't have the built in telnet server, and Vircom's MajorTCP module is laggy and slow with telnet connections. The Worldgroup 2.0 built-in telnet server has its own problems with networking, but at least its fast. I'm gonna have to do a write up soon of all my findings.
I've been testing Worldgroup 1 & 2 (DOS) against VirtualBox, VMWare, and DosBox, and they all have different problems. Mostly networking and response times. Some straight up crashing.
You're probably better off trying DOSEMU for linux with Worldgroup 2.0 / MajorMUD. It's something I'm looking forward to trying. Worldgroup 1.0 doesn't have the built in telnet server, and Vircom's MajorTCP module is laggy and slow with telnet connections. The Worldgroup 2.0 built-in telnet server has its own problems with networking, but at least its fast. I'm gonna have to do a write up soon of all my findings.
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
Forgive me the simple question, but is the goal to resurrect legacy versions of MMUD and other software, or is this just for the challenge...?
ClassicMUD... lightly seasoned with no dupes!
www.mudinfo.net/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2357
www.mudinfo.net/viewtopic.php?f=64&t=2357
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
There's an advantage, in my opinion, to being able to run a DOS version of MajorMUD on Linux in that you don't have to worry about the overhead of installing Windows on a VM or dealing with WINE issues. DosBox will also run MajorMUD through MBBS/WG. Haven't tried DOSEMU yet.
And there's always something to say for the challenge, I suppose...
And there's always something to say for the challenge, I suppose...
- BearFather
- Posts: 652
- Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 6:27 pm
- Location: Portland, OR
- Contact:
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
I know the unix version of MMBS/WG won't run mud. The dll crashes. I tried quickly with dos version of mud and gave up quickly.
I was interested to try to run mud boards off a pi.
I was interested to try to run mud boards off a pi.
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
Some good news on the Linux front: I spent the last week or so trying to get a stable VM of MS-DOS with WG2.0/MMUD up and running. I tried VirtualBox, VMWare, DosBox, DosEmu, QEmu and different versions from each. The only one that has solid networking and is fast and stable enough is QEmu, surprisingly. Runs great with the right configuration. I'll do a small write-up soon on my findings and the problems I ran into with each.
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
might also for what your playing with is which linux distro your useing straight ubuntu will use more resources than lubuntu i my self use lubuntu cuz it's very light on resources have 8 g memory so no big deal bbs itself is a vm over mint mate
as for cpu usage i have set my comp to use the cpu virtual whatever in the system bios but when i try to set virtual box to use more than 1 cpu on a quad core system vb says not supported
as for cpu usage i have set my comp to use the cpu virtual whatever in the system bios but when i try to set virtual box to use more than 1 cpu on a quad core system vb says not supported
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
I tried on a lightweight Slackware distro (Vector) and Lubuntu. I'm a fan of the lighter linux distros.Bloodrock wrote:might also for what your playing with is which linux distro your useing straight ubuntu will use more resources than lubuntu i my self use lubuntu cuz it's very light on resources have 8 g memory so no big deal bbs itself is a vm over mint mate
I tested all applicable softwares with accelerated virtualization (VT-X) enabled. Any time accelerated virtualization is involved, the timings and responses of the BBS get really weird. Usually starting off really fast, then coming to a halt. Without accelerated virtualization or multi-cpu, all of them, except QEMU, are too slow either with general processing or with networking. I'm running a newer Intel i7 system too.
In VirtualBox, to use the accelerated virtualization (VT-X/AMD-V), you have to enable "I/O APIC". To use multi-CPUs, you need "I/O APIC" and VT-X/AMD-V enabled.Bloodrock wrote:as for cpu usage i have set my comp to use the cpu virtual whatever in the system bios but when i try to set virtual box to use more than 1 cpu on a quad core system vb says not supported
Re: Anyone tried to host mud from linux?
Can't wait to see the write-up.rytz wrote:Some good news on the Linux front: I spent the last week or so trying to get a stable VM of MS-DOS with WG2.0/MMUD up and running. I tried VirtualBox, VMWare, DosBox, DosEmu, QEmu and different versions from each. The only one that has solid networking and is fast and stable enough is QEmu, surprisingly. Runs great with the right configuration. I'll do a small write-up soon on my findings and the problems I ran into with each.