|
KaVir:
If you'd bother to look at the thread, you'd find that your ad hominem here is, as usual, false. I have not misquoted anyone. The only mistake here was logos', who thought that your response to me applied to his statement, which led to your mistake in attributing the misunderstanding to me.
Please don't claim that making a more general statement than a previous poster, without stating or even implying that it was said by them, constitutes misquoting.
Edit: logos' original quote was "other available mud engines available that have proved themselves to nearly the same extent in a commerical environment". I did include the phrase "as logos noted" in my post which mentioned only some possible particulars of a commercial environment. Your later qubble with logos over successful vs MORE successful certainly has nothing to do with my post, though, and I don't understand your recurring need to flame me.
Commercial license terms are also either unavailable or hard to compare to the engines/codebases you cite. As I understand it, DIKU II for example is a codebase, while Rapture is a language and compiler/interpreter with native socket support. DGD/LP would be an interesting comparison if you have a pointer to license terms?
Cold was the one I had foremost in my mind when I was posting. Very nice codebase to start from for a team with a strong coder, but I don't know who's using it besides Genesis. DIKU II- I know about it, but I didn't know if anyone was actually using it. DGD- ok, that one I forgot about. I'm open to correction on this point- that's why I ended my paragraph with a question about whether I was unaware of something I should be.
On the other hand, logos is correct in pointing out that success is relative and Achaea now Iron Realms seems to be doing extremely well relative to other ventures.
If I were to object to Rapture, it would probably be on technical rather than license grounds- I just don't like the language.
Unless you're suggesting that Rapture would require more time and effort to develop content for than another engine/codebase, I'm not sure how this is relevant.
How so? All the differences I can think of make his success seem less likely than malaclypse's, not more.
Then consider my comment modified to "You're claiming that his business model will not generate a positive return on investment in a reasonable period of time to a person (logos, not me) who has already made that business model work, and shows every sign of continuing to make it work."
I doubt if many of the readers here see a significant difference between these two phrasings, other than that the new one is a lot less concise.
Stilton
|