+1 for seperate viewers for opensim.
2012/12/11 GarminKawaguichi <[email protected]> > I much prefer using Firestorm for OpenSim since developers have clearly > separated Opensim version from the SL one. Firestorm 431 31155 version is > very powerful and there are of course some lacks. > But Firestorm developers are very responsive and they opened a section > OpenSim in their Jira (successfully tested). > > On the other hand, we can always think that people who have made a server > would > be best placed to make a viewer. Except that this would lead to a > paradoxical situation where OpenSim developers ask Linden Lab permission > to use sources V2/3/4, keeping in mind that the issue of licenses would > remain the same that with the SL viewer and the viewer FireStorm. > > As for building a viewer from scratch, as did our realXtend friends .... > it's difficult to gather enough people and get results in a significant > delay. > > GCI > > Le 11/12/2012 00:08, Mircea Kitsune a écrit : > > Hey everyone. I've been away from OpenSim for a while but got back. Since > last time I've been around, I read about Linden's decision to cut OpenSim > support from their viewer due to some crazy licenses with their physics > engine. The rights and wrongs have been discussed and are not the point of > this email. But this decision means that in some senses, OpenSim will > become completely separate from Linden's SL, and some fundamental things > might change. I wanted both to ask what exactly is going to happen, but > also post my own suggestion. Obviously I'm not someone who can say what's > good and bad, but personally this is what I strongly believe OpenSim should > do and go for. > > The way I see things, OpenSim has primarily been a server-side for Second > Life during its existence. Even if its purpose is a general virtual worlds > platform, SL was the only usable viewer in practice. Now that LL cut its > support, it's in the situation of having no exact client to be used with. > There are many third-party viewers that will continue supporting OpenSim, > but IMHO they can't be considered a reliable source in the long term. I > assume most of them have their own developers which take decisions > independently from the OpenSim team. If one of those viewers dies for > instance, it's up to the user to go looking for another one that's still > under development. Apart from the fact that people have to hunt for a > viewer, this situation also kept OpenSim from being able to make changes > that would require viewer modifications as well. > > My opinion is that OpenSim won't get far if it relies on random viewer > forks to be used with at this point. We are not a clear standard > technology, unlike web browsers for instance where you can use Apache to > host and FireFox to browse, both unrelated and a variety of choices > available for each. This is not to say OpenSim should be unusable with > viewers unrelated to SL, since that would go against its purpose. But the > SL viewer is a very large and complex thing, and there will surely never be > anyone making a client from scratch which will implement all of its > features, look as good, be as fast, as bug free, etc. The building and prim > editing tools, the terrain editor, the avatar and mesh system, the > rendering features, the GUI... it's unlikely anyone will properly re-write > all that from zero when the SL viewer exists and works fine. > > This is why I believe we need our own official viewer, developed by and > with the OpenSim server, and based on one of the Second Life viewers. Apart > from the fact that people will know they don't depend on someone else to > make them a viewer, it would allow client + server changes to be done for > the first time, rather than having to stay within the SL viewer's limits. > If that doesn't happen, I don't believe we'll ever become a better virtual > worlds platform outside of SL's shadow. I remember the days of RealXtend (I > heard it's dead now) which took the SL viewer in one hand, OpenSim in > another, and created its very own project which was completely amazing for > those days (SL now has mesh support and better graphics so it makes > RealXtend less special at this day). My personal opinion is that it's time > OpenSim does something similar. > > If it was me, I'd say grab the latest SL viewer without the restrictive > Havoc library and make OpenSim viewer from that. If Linden adds a nice > feature to theirs which we can copy over, sure thing, but otherwise it can > go its own separate way. On the other hand, it would be a good aim to allow > previous SL viewers to still connect to OpenSim, though they wouldn't > recognize some of its specific features then. I know OS and SL and under > two different licenses, but that doesn't make it wrong to distribute both > on the same website and as part of the same project. > > What does the core team of OpenSim think about this? Are there any plans > or will to go in this direction? Or does anyone believe that instead we > should continue providing support for SL's features and have OpenSim users > find their own clients like until now? I believe this is an important > question, and would like to know what to expect in the future. Personally I > really hope something in this direction will be decided, but I'm not one to > know best. > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing > [email protected]https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > -- Groningen en Hannover Opensims: secondlife://meverhagen.nl:8002:Hannover ZW/
_______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
