On 2012-04-12 17:50 , glen wrote: > On Thu, 2012-04-12 at 14:09 -0700, Ann Otoole wrote: >> Thankfully the previously bad aos are not so bad now. If a client side >> AO cannot perform what Oracul and/or Vista AOs do then it is a total >> waste of time to bother with the client side code. In order to do >> client side AOs requires AO expertise. Period. Don't even bother if >> you don't have it. Because it will be a waste and people will still >> use AOs. > Agree. I'm one of the ones who's written a scripted AO. I tried the > client-side AO in Firestorm and went back to my own because of the > feature set. A server-side AO would like be even worse. >
Ok... so those are nice opinions to have, but you're not succeeding in educating me... what is it that makes these better or worse? What do they do or not do that differentiates one from another? _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
