MOO-cows Mailing List Archive
[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re: checkpoints
>Since players can't schedule checkpoints, why do they need to know when
>they are? The MOO shouldn't crash so frequently that they need to know when
>checkpoints will be, in order to schedule their work to be saved.
>I also don't think players need to be told how much lag's being caused.
>Either it's too small for them to notice, in which case it doesn't affect
>them and they don't need to be told about it, or the lag is noticeable, in
>which case they still don't need to be told that the MOO is lagging.
I disagree. Lambdamoo is nearly unusable during checkpoints, and I
think it is very valuable for players to be able to predict how their
mooing session is going to be. Sure, sometimes the MOO is unbearably
laggy for other reasons that aren't predictable, but the more
information the better. When a situation is bad, understanding of the
causes can go a long way towards people grinning and bearing it rather
than demanding "something be done." Similarly, in cases where we're
mooing without a net (that is, checkpoint failed), I think it's
valuable for players to know not to count on the work they just did
getting properly saved, and to take the extra time, possibly, to save
their new verbs, messages, etc. offline.
>He who knows when the MOO will checkpoint knows the best time to
>crash it, for maximum data loss.
I really don't think crackers attack especially close to a checkpoint
so as to cause maximum data loss. They attack when they're least
likely to be caught, that is, when the sysadmin's snoring.
Judy Anderson yclept yduJ 'yduJ' rhymes with 'fudge'
yduJ@cs.stanford.edu (personal mail) yduJ@harlequin.com (work-related)
Join the League for Programming Freedom, lpf@uunet.uu.net
References:
Home |
Subject Index |
Thread Index