*> I think opensim should cut off sl-support this year.* I completely disagree. Well I guess I have mixed feelings about it.
SL has the right to create a "walled garden" if they so choose. Any other grid owner can do the same (if they so choose). I believe "sl-support" is necessary to build upon what SL has done (in the past) and it also allows SL users to easily "transition" over to OpenSim. I was really hoping for some form of "backwards compatibility" but at the same time, I don't think realXtend should be "weighed down" by SL anymore. I believe realXtend and OpenSim should continue in their own direction (with OSSL) but still try to maintain backwards support/compatibility as much as possible (at least with in-world "LSL" scripting). As far as SL avatars, or objects I'm not quite sure. This is up for much debate, but I'd rather see much higher quality avatars, and additional cool features and if that does mean losing a little bit of "backwards compatibility" with SL, then it's not something that I would really cry over. I'd rather see realXtend move forward (and become better), and not be hindered by what SL is doing. I believe that was the whole point of realXtend to be begin with. I still think OpenSim should try to remain as compatible as possible with SL (just for "usability" sake, and so the "learning curve" for users transitioning over from SL). But if OpenSim starts to break away as well, I guess I wouldn't really cry about that either. (Just as long as "LSL" scripting and various other features continue to stay backwards compatible, just so users can continue to develop in OpenSim/RealXtend without too much of a "learning curve"). I do think we should continue with "OSSL" and adding all the great features of RealXtend, and I believe Naali is going to be the future. It's hard to say at this point. I'd rather see realXtend grow, and get better, but I'd like to see as much backwards compatibility as possible (as long as it doesn't interfere with any of the new additional features and capabilities that we're trying to accomplish). *> It doesn't make sense to support sl-derived viewers much longer* Well, Naali still needs some time, but once Naali becomes more stable, and if we can include many of the great features of Emerald, or the various other viewers and pack all that great stuff into a 'Naali' viewer, then I would agree. As long as development continues at the pace it's been going, I think Naali could end up being a good replacement for the old "SL-derived" viewers, but at the same time SL-based viewers are fairly stable, and Naali is still very young (and it pales in comparison with current features). So I'd wait till Naali is at least equal or better than SL-derived viewers before cutting off support for SL-derived viewers. I think in time, that this decision that LL is making will end up hurting them in the long run, or it will at least create a large "divide" between the two (OpenSim/ReX and the LL) communities. All we can do is hope that Naali development continues to move forward, and just focus on the future (and not the past). *> It would be good for both opensim and realxtend, if * *> functionality can be designed without keeping the constraints * *> of the ancient ll-based viewer in mind.* I would agree with this statement to a point, but at the same time I'd rather see Naali be as "backwards compatible" as possible, and in maybe another year or two from now (when Naali has all the same features that SL-based viewers have) and once Naali is equal to (or even better) than current SL-based viewers. But Naali still has a long way to go, and SL-based viewers really do have a lot of great features and Naali is still lacking. I'd at least wait till Naali can do everything that a current SL-based Viewer can do, and wait till Naali has the stability and maturity of a current SL-based viewer (like Emerald) then begin considering our options. But at the same time, I'd hate to see losing the ability to choose from a wide variety of viewers (like Emerald, Hippo, etc.) I think OpenSim should still maintain backwards compatibility with SL-based viewers, but realXtend I can understand their decision to move towards a "Naali" viewer that has all the additional functionality that ReX supports. *> Naali *could* meet all those requirements in theory -- but I doubt > we'd be interested in complying with such onerous demands... * It doesn't seem like their "demands" are too unreasonable. I believe just by reading what they are asking for, that they're simply trying to crack down on the "copy bot" viewers, that allow users to simply copy other people's work, or harm other users (or launch DoS attacks, or be disruptive to SL users or the SL Community). It doesn't seem like their demands are too "unreasonable" and that SL is simply trying to prevent "griefing" that is often caused by users that are using third-party viewers that have started circulating (like the "Neil Life" series of viewers). http://gwynethllewelyn.net/2009/08/07/spammers-are-disseminating-a-new-illegal-sl-client-under-my-name/ I can fully understand how/why Linden Labs wouldn't really want third-party viewers floating around that allow users to directly copy or change permissions on other people's objects. I think SL's intent is to stop viewers like "Neil Life" and I really don't think this was aimed at Naali, or RealXtend based viewers. *> > it's pretty much destroyed any illusion it's an open network.* I think SL is just protecting it's users, which any reasonable grid owner would try to do. With all the SL users complaining about the attacks caused by "Neil Life" based viewers, and I can see that LL is just attempting to clamp down on the "Neil Life" software. I really don't think this is aimed at, or directed towards Naali at all. Naali is not really designed to be a malicious viewer, nor is it designed with tools specifically used for griefing other users. Mark On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 5:22 AM, Jeroen van Veen <j.veen...@gmail.com>wrote: > I think opensim should cut off sl-support this year. It doesn't make sense > to > support sl-derived viewers much longer, when naali is becoming stable, and > linden labs is even increasing the height of their walled gardens. It would > be > good for both opensim and realxtend, if functionality can be designed > without > keeping the constraints of the ancient ll-based viewer in mind. > > Jeroen > > Op woensdag 24 februari 2010 11:05:15 schreef Ryan McDougall: > > For those who've missed the IRC discussions: > > > > Seems LL is clamping down on what viewers will run on their network: > > http://secondlife.com/corporate/tpv.php > > > > Naali *could* meet all those requirements in theory -- but I doubt > > we'd be interested in complying with such onerous demands... > > > > I guess it's fair enough -- it's their network, and they can > > arbitrarily decide whom they allow to connect and who not; however > > it's pretty much destroyed any illusion it's an open network. > > > > Does this change anything for realXtend stake holders? Is there any > > point in supporting SL features like SL avatars any more? > > > > Curious what others feel about this. > > > > Cheers, > > > > -- > http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend > http://www.realxtend.org > -- http://groups.google.com/group/realxtend http://www.realxtend.org
