Bravo, Morgaine. Well done indeed. :) Cheers
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 5:12 PM, Kyle <[email protected]> wrote: > What she said! Thank you Morgaine for clarifying this for all of us. In > my opinion this discussion was appropriate here to understand roadmap and > documentation efforts. Thanks for caring to let the rest of the community > hear about your very smart opinions. More talk like this will bring the > community together wherever it occurs. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Morgaine > *Sent:* Monday, November 23, 2009 6:04 PM > > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [Opensim-dev] Leaving Project > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Len Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > For me the shock came when I was abruptly informed that *"OpenSim is not > Second Life, is not intended to be like Second Life, nor ever will."* I > still haven't the foggiest idea what this developer had smoked for them to > so strongly assert that incredibly false statement. > > > > Len, let me give you an alternative perspective on that quote to help you > see the reasons for it. I'm not on the Opensim team, but after five years > in SL, two years in AWG, and a year of working on future VW protocols in our > IETF group, I have some background to know why Opensim needs to distance > itself from SL: > > - SL's statically tiled resource architecture is badly *non-scalable*, > because most resource usage in VWs cannot be statically mapped (demand > moves > around). The inability to assign resources dynamically in SL results in > huge overload in busy places and gross wastage in idle areas. It also > limits the number of participants in events and the bandwidth of their > interaction, as well as the size and complexity of everything in a region. > This architecture is fundamental to SL, yet it is a recipe for failure. As > long as Opensim adheres to the SL model, Opensim will be similarly > non-scalable. > > > > - The LSL scripting language is linguistically weak, semantically > obscure, and lacking in the glue that could allow components to cooperate > effectively. As a result, individual scripts are quite underpowered and > inefficient, and multi-script constructions do not scale well in complexity > because the overheads of cooperation are so large. That's a bad > restriction > on progress which Opensim needs to leave behind. > > > > - LSL scripts are not scalable in power or size, and this will continue > to be true even after SL allows C# and other CLR languages to be used. > There is no possibility of using more CPU power for scripting than is > available in one single simulator in SL. That is not a good foundation > upon > which to build an ambitious future of clever components. > > > > - SL's simulation environment is non-portable, having evolved over time > into a plethora of special cases that will not be accurately replicable > anywhere else. In effect this means that there will never be effective > interop with SL's scripted objects. It would not be a useful goal to seek > compatibility with what could realistically be described as an "ill-defined > mess". > > > > - SL's object and type systems are *non-extensible*, so compatibility > with SL means living in the past, and worse, living in a past defined > entirely by one slow-moving company. Tying the capabilities of Opensim to > that millstone would be a disaster --- it would ensure the death of Opensim > versus any extensible alternative that may appear. Developing new > extensible forms of world data beyond SL's original set is a must for > Opensim's survival as a modern VW platform. > > > > - SL's viewer has deep knowledge of SL semantics because the client and > server were designed for each other rather than designed as endpoints of a > standard protocol. This has the very bad consequence that future VW > viewers > would need to know about SL specifics in order to interoperate with SL, > which is a poor approach that doesn't scale to metaverse-wide diversity. > Opensim needs to leave world-specific kludges behind if it has ambitions to > underpin a highly diverse metaverse of worlds, and this means leaving the > SL > viewer behind. > > > > - SL's constructed objects are *non-hierarchical*, which means that > creators cannot use objects created by others as subcomponents. This > restriction completely blocks the hierarchical engineering process that is > the basis of progress in RL. In SL you always have to build from "raw > materials", so it is not possible to ride on the shoulders of giants, nor > harness a huge pyramid of people skills. Even Philip and Cory Linden > admitted that this was a mistake -- see > https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Prim_and_Object_Hierarchy . We don't > want to live with their mistake. > > > > - SL is based on highly *centralized* concepts of *identity, storage > and control*, which come together to create either a walled garden or a > prison planet, depending on one's perspective. Whatever one's worldview, > the end result is badly non-scalable in those three areas. SL suffers > hugely from that non-scalability despite the relatively small size of the > service at this early stage. Opensim needs decentralized / distributed > mechanisms for *identity, storage and control* if it is to scale for > Internet-wide adoption. > > > > - From a futurist angle, Second Life has very narrow horizons and > barely pays lip service to the *virtual* aspect of "virtual worlds". > Nobody could claim that a Flatland of square land tiles all featuring the > same Earth-like look and physics pushes the envelope of the imagination. > To > boldly go where Lindens did not go before (topologically and geographically > or spatially) will be one of the most appreciated developments in Opensim. > SL's obsession with RL is an unwanted constraint in VWs, and we need to go > beyond it. > > > > That is not the full list of problems with SL, but hopefully it serves to > illustrate some of the concerns that VW developers have to consider in the > light of the SL legacy. While Linden Lab deserves much applause for their > vision and for their work in creating Second Life, many years have now > passed, and lessons have been learned. Compatibility with SL must not be > the end goal of Opensim because of issues like those highlighted above. > > From a longer perspective, SL represents only the first step in the > evolution of virtual worlds. It is no surprise that most Opensim developers > wish to go beyond that first step, learning from past mistakes and finding > better models for the future. > > I mentioned earlier our work at the IETF on new VW protocols, in which LL > are a leading party --- see https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx , > the mailing list of the VWRAP working group. What may surprise you is that > even Lindens know that the current SL is not a good model for the future, > which is why the protocols being discussed go far beyond their legacy ones. > Indeed, Lindens will be facing a huge rewrite if this work bears fruit. > When even Lindens don't wish their future to be constrained by the current > SL design because they know its many problems, this really highlights how > bad it would be for the Opensim team to do so. :-) > > I hope that one or more of these issues resonates with you, and makes it a > bit clearer why Opensim really cannot afford to align itself with SL. There > is no future in looking backwards. > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > > ======================================= > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Len Brown <[email protected]> wrote: > > Rock, > > I sympathize with you on many levels. I've also had my doubts > regarding the future of OpenSim, but I have also maintained some degree of > faith that things will pull through in the end. > > For me the shock came when I was abruptly informed that "OpenSim is > not Second Life, is not intended to be like Second Life, nor ever will." I > still haven't the foggiest idea what this developer had smoked for them to > so strongly assert that incredibly false statement. > > For me, the enjoyment of OpenSim has come from my intense devotion to > building and skinning. In fact, for the last few months I've been working > on a full region that has many hundreds of skins, clothes, hair, furniture, > etc, etc, that I'd like to package up as an OAR and give out freely, since > repeatedly I've been told that instead of giving money to help further > OpenSim I'd do more proactively by giving content. So I plan to do just > that and give my money to other open source initiatives that matter to me. > > I have a passion for writing, and have thought many times that one of > the greatest powers OpenSim would gain is having simple, straightforward, > step-by-step instructions on how to download, compile, install, administer > and overall just plain operate the core applications. What kills me is that > everyone who does a search for OpenSim inevitably hits the > opensimulator.org site and that is where the massive roadblock presents > itself. It's useless for most and irrelevant to the few who consider > themselves OpenSim experts. > > Heck, even now on the configuration page it still displays info for > 0.6.6 including (months old) known bugs in setting up region xml files. If > there was appointed a volunteer whose sole job was to keep information on > opensimulator.org relevant that one task would resolve a mountain of > negativity right there. I sit here in front of my computers a good 10 to 12 > hours a day. > > I would sincerely love to contribute to the OpenSim project, > especially in documentation support. But the thing holding me back is > communication. If I cannot get a straight answer on who to GIVE money to in > order to help, then I stand little chance of getting clear, straight answers > from developers when asking about issues I need to consider and incorporate > in documentation. > > If communication is a hurdle we can all overcome, with a genuine and > heart-felt effort to relay information, motives, and plans with one another, > then I'd sincerely appreciate having the opportunity to personally > contribute. I'm not a programmer today, but have a degree in programming > fro the 90's (so much has changed my degree is practically useless in that > regard). But I do know how to explain things and relay information in > simple terms. But only if my own questions will be answered with more than > "look it up or figure it out yourself" as my answer. > > If any of you would appreciate my help, feel free to let me know at > any time and I'll do what I can. > > - Len W. Brown > [email protected] > > > > On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Colin B. Withers < > [email protected]> wrote: > > Hi guys, > > I have decided to leave the Opensim project. You will probably not even > notice if I leave, as not being a programmer my only inputs were the writing > of the step-by-step tutorials ( http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/), > the drafts of the OpenSim User Manual on the Forge, and helping out in > the IRC channels, for newcomers. > > You may find my reasons for leaving Opensim interesting though (and please > do not construe any of my reasons as an attack on anyone). > > 1. The Platform > I raised this several times in the past in IRC, and made posts on my blog > about the product lifecycle of the platform ( > http://rock-vacirca.blogspot.com/2009/02/direction-of-virtual-worlds.html). I > believe that the platforms underpinning both Second Life and Opensim > are quite long in the tooth now, and I questioned how much product lifecycle > there was left, particularly given that Opensim is now nearing 3 years of > development, is still in Alpha, and if the current release of 0.6.7 is any > indicator, then still only around two thirds into the development cycle. > With the (inevitable) coming of much superior platforms, such as Blue Mars > and (as a virtual world); Unity, for browser-based Virtual Wolrds; and now > UDK (for creating sandboxes, standalones, and open grids), then I fear that > Opensim has missed the boat as far as the remaining lifecycle of the > platform is concerned. When you show people what is possible with these > engines (for example this avatar editor for the forthcom > ing APB (using the Unreal Engine): > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icR3LtEMvZI or this city: > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmLzNbPXMDg (using the CryEngine), then > neither SL not Opensim stands comparison. > > 2. Lack of Support for Currency in Opensim > I felt the impact of this when I first made the switch from SL to Opensim. > I had a thriving RP sim in SL (over 50 people, mainly female) and they all > agreed to follow me over to my Opensim and the OSGrid. However, within a > month they had all left, citing the same reason, the lack of places to shop, > to buy the quality stuff they wanted (skins, hair, clothes etc), as a > quality appearance, and the fun of shopping is what all the females placed > high on their requirements from a Virtual World. They drifted back to Second > Life, and the guys followed them. I have always believed that the lack of > support for currency in the core was a mistake, but that is just my opinion. > > 3. Marketing > I have also raised this issue several times, and blogged about it. It is > far from clear just who an eventually released Opensim is actually aimed at. > I think that any company that is interested in a firewalled corporate > solution to collaboration and prototyping will already be looking at the > Enterprise solution that is currently available from Second Life; that any > indie group that is thinking of running a themed grid will need an economy > to stay viable; and any individual who is looking for a private sandbox > solution for their SL work will need full compatibility (which is not the > case with the OS version of LSL diverging from the SL LSL). So, just who is > the platform aimed at? I was also very disappointed in the view of one of > the core devs who said that 'marketing is a null concept for us'. > > I am currently designing and creating cities for Blue Mars, and involved in > a team for proving the UDK as a platform for the design and creation of > Virtual Worlds (as opposed to purely games), and with so much documentation > available for these mature engines (particularly for the UDK, Blue Mars lags > behind somewhat in that department, but have hired extra staff to put that > right), I am achieving the productivity I want, building the worlds that I > want, with stable crash-free platforms. > > However, I do wish the Opensim team the very best in their endeavours, and > I sincerely hope their goals are eventually achieved. > > If anyone would like to take over the Opensim Tutorials pages at > http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/ and > http://chapter-and-metaverse2.blogspot.com/ (they will need some updating > following several changes) then I am more than willing to pass the posts > over, and of course the Opensim User Manual is there in the Forge for anyone > to develop further. > > Best Regards and Good Luck > > Rock > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > No virus found in this incoming message. > > Checked by AVG - www.avg.com > Version: 9.0.709 / Virus Database: 270.14.78/2521 - Release Date: 11/23/09 > 14:45:00 > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > -- =================================== http://osgrid.org http://del.icio.us/SPQR http://twitter.com/jstallings2 http://www.linkedin.com/pub/5/770/a49
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
