Article:
I was under the impression that Mystique was a combination of Dirt, Dyrt, and iDirt...thus I couldn't classify it really.

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to Original Article:

CF,




I wanted to submit a suggestion for your mudlist to make it more


accurate. Instead of having Dirt 3.1 listed, why not just list


all muds with Dirt code? If not, then why not add a Dirt 3.0


listing then as well? I say this because Mystique's codebase


isn't really "unknown," but an older version of Dirt. I think


if you used either of these suggestions, your mudlist would be


a lot more accurate. =-)




--Rachael, Goddess of Mystique

The assignment of the MUDs to different types (Dirt, Dyrt, iDirt, CDirt) is not very helpful to anyone anyway. The borders are fuzzy and some MUDs are a combination of code from all of them. Some MUDs have different names for their code bases, because they have added more or less new code, which distinguishes their code from the original.


For example Dragon and Phoenix are both listed as Dyrt, although they more distinct from each other, than CDirt is from iDirt. I would suggest that this codebase system be abandoned and replaced with a more informative method, which for example lists certain core features and differences between the MUDs.




** Sorisor **

Actually, to be accurate, Mystique's source code should be listed as Elven v3.0

--- --- --- --- --- --- --- --- ---

Replying to:

CF,




I wanted to submit a suggestion for your mudlist to make it more


accurate. Instead of having Dirt 3.1 listed, why not just list


all muds with Dirt code? If not, then why not add a Dirt 3.0


listing then as well? I say this because Mystique's codebase


isn't really "unknown," but an older version of Dirt. I think


if you used either of these suggestions, your mudlist would be


a lot more accurate. =-)




--Rachael, Goddess of Mystique