Hi OpenSim dev list
I think Douglas question regarding a product roadmap is very relevant, so I will just comment on it from my point of view, were I want to use OpenSimulator as a learning platform for K12 students. I am still new to OpenSimulator, therefore I will try to look at the project from a accessibility and business perspective and only comment briefly on the architecture. My background: I have worked 20 years as freelance solution architect, senior developer, product manager for Software Innovation DK and in many R&D units and recently as enterprise search specialist. I have only developed a few teacher and student tools with a shared region module for OpenSimulator http://www.oligo.academy/tools/, so my ideas for architecture are not based on or limited by practical experience with this platform - think of them as ideas for a general discussion towards a project road map. I think the key driver for everything else, is the accessibility and business opportunities perspective and therefore also the viewer experience. There has been some good ideas with the OnLook viewer and PixieViewer, but I think the scalability and accessibility issues need to be solved in the backend services. My short 2 points wish list for OpenSimulator roadmap is: Priority 1) Make support for new protocols to build fast browser based viewers and have better scalability To make OpenSimulator accessible to more people and use cases on any device, by implementing backend services for browser based viewers. Perhaps using mean.io stack with MongoDB and also threejs.org (see scene loader example), to create a cache in MongoDB that makes is possible to build a fast browser based viewer, by structuring data as the viewer needs it. The browser based viewer should only have simple build tools and persist to the OpenSim database. Is the core OpenSimulator code the right place to solve accessibility and scalability issues or can my suggestion coexist with the current implementation? I think it is important to keep compability with existing software stack, while building new services for new requirements. Linden Labs decision to move on will make many content creators look towards OpenSim grids and services like Kitely market. Priority 2) Clear and up-to-date documentation - Make better installation and system management documentation for running hybergrids, setting up proxy servers to avoid firewall issues and any other problems users and administrators run into. - Update plugin and shared region module development examples and documentation to make it easy for new developers to add features and follow coding standards. Perhaps make it easy to search for recently updated information on the opensimulator website. Why is a project road map so important? I think it's important to identify long term goals in a project road map: like what do we need to do to make the best scalable hybergrid platform, most secure platform for kids, to improve accessibility of this software or to support content creators and content sharing. Having a roadmap makes sure the objectives are common knowledge and will help the constant progress. Having a legal entity like Overte used to be, also makes it possible to get public funding, which can also help the progress of the project. Why should accessibility be prioritized? The goal of a fast browser based viewer protocol or a secure learning environment, are requirements for schools that have a "Bring your own device" strategy and need to adhere to children's protection act. It would also open up the platform for many more users and business cases. When no viewer installation is required not only school kids would benefit, but also business cases like online interactive museums, galleries, auctions etc. I think the support for WebGL is quite good (http://caniuse.com/#feat=webgl and mature frameworks like ThreeJS have good examples http://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_loader_scene. Therefore I think the conditions to succeed are in place, if we can build backend services to support fast browser based viewers, without the constrains of the existing protocols. PS: Thanks to all people, who have contributed to this great project over the years, it has a lot of potential - let's make it more accessible to more people ;-) Have a nice day Regards Nikolaj Freelance solution architect at Olio ApS (http://olio.dk) -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: 13. august 2015 19:23 To: [email protected] Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 23 Send Opensim-dev mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opensim-dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Cinder Roxley) 2. The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Ovi Chris Rouly) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:32:09 -0600 From: Cinder Roxley <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" On August 13, 2015 at 8:14:30 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) ([email protected]) wrote: Classification: UNCLASSIFIED? Caveats: NONE? Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the? code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans for? the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make? some!? I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:? 1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its? available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.? 2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability".? 3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.? 4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network? topologies.? 5) Bug identification & reduction.? 6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as? naturalized bot interactions.? 7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain? and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more? natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.? What are yours? Anyone?? v/r -doug This can be considered my ?wish list? as I don?t really have a say in what happens, but I?m willing to put in a fair share of work in seeing that it can be done if others agree these are desirable targets: 1) Restating what Doug has mentioned, Clear and up-to-date API documentation. This hinders contributors, myself included, from working on things and leads to a lot of frustration and disappointed from well-intentioned folks. 2) A coding standard that defines and formalizes the style of code used throughout the codebase and is adhered to and enforced and should be pointed to often and regularly for contributions. Good code is easy to read and manageable. A formal coding standard is a good step in that direction. 3) OpenSim is a thread monster. There doesn?t seem to be any sort of approach to how threading is handled. This I think would fall under Doug?s criteria for #1. 4) I think it?s time to hop off the fence and decide whether to maintain the Second Life protocol compatibility, (Which, let?s be honest, is pretty lacking. There?s a lot missing post-2010.) or to break new ground. Linden Lab has apparently made their decision regarding that. There are viewer developers out there willing to work with OpenSimulator is doing this. I am one of them. I just can?t be in IRC all the time, but I want to do this with you guys and I know there are others out there willing to put in the work to build clients to connect to new and better worlds with sensible protocols. Please don?t take any of this as criticism as it is not meant as such. I appreciate all the work that everyone on this project and who is affiliated with it does. --? Cinder Roxley Sent with Airmail -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/5177ff5 d/attachment-0001.html> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:22:57 -0400 From: "Ovi Chris Rouly" <[email protected]> To: <[email protected]> Subject: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <[email protected]> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Doug, I like all of those ideas. They would make my life significantly easier and my research far more plausible! Chris George Mason University Fairfax, VA >>>>>>>>>>>> -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of [email protected] Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:38 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22 Send Opensim-dev mailing list submissions to [email protected] To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to [email protected] You can reach the person managing the list at [email protected] When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than "Re: Contents of Opensim-dev digest..." Today's Topics: 1. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)) 2. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Blake) ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Message: 1 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:13:52 +0000 From: "Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)" <[email protected]> To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <180878fac40f8447aded7ba2de0775fd33d7d...@ugunhpso.easf.csd.disa.mil> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans for the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make some! I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives: 1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits. 2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability". 3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation. 4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical network topologies. 5) Bug identification & reduction. 6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as naturalized bot interactions. 7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now. What are yours? Anyone? v/r -doug Dr. Douglas Maxwell Science and Technology Manager Virtual World Strategic Applications U.S. Army Research Lab Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) (c) (407) 242-0209 -----Original Message----- From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin Clark-Casey Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) I won't comment much over future direction. However, Overte was never a governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other things in the future (which never got realized). Power over development direction has always been with the developers. CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those projects that are very worried about getting sued. The vast majority have no such structures. It is very debatable whether anything other than the open-source license is needed. And there are many different project structures out there. Linux, for example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase. That is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got overwhelmed by it). The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization. Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what happens to the codebase. On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <[email protected]> wrote: Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE Projects evolve. I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into this valuable project. The potential for technical and economic success is profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator. That said, I fear we are at a crossroads at this time with this project. It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open Simulator code have planned for the project. Is there a roadmap or some sort of goals/objectives you are working against? What development targets would you like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now? The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up and supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for the Open Simulator project. We've done our own internal gap analysis and determined where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, monitoring, and scalability improvements. In short, we are returning our code to you to adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing terms. I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is a mistake if you plan to encourage participation from business and government. The CLA was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship acknowledging the legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use. If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be needed. However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging money for service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical behavior, by educators, and more. Like it or not, you have created a product that needs management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method that is currently your standard operating procedures. Project management must evolve. As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued commodities, the need for different styles of management is required. A project with two active developers is different than a project with 20 or 200. If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited and growth is not possible. I encourage you to think about a new structure that can handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time. The kinds of investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you to step up and begin project planning. This is a community effort. If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or even receive maintenance, then the community must voice. This code does not belong in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity. This code belongs in the hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract funds to pay a staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area code managers. This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic institution of some kind. I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development for the MOSES related Open Simulator issues. We came in this spring at a time when development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after the 0.8.x releases. What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of our work? What is next for Open Simulator? I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse. v/r -doug Dr. Douglas Maxwell Science and Technology Manager Virtual World Strategic Applications U.S. Army Research Lab Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) (c) (407) 242-0209 Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev Classification: UNCLASSIFIED Caveats: NONE -------------- next part -------------- A non-text attachment was scrubbed... Name: smime.p7s Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature Size: 5629 bytes Desc: not available URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/ab16433 e/attachment-0001.bin> ------------------------------ Message: 2 Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:37:20 -0400 From: Blake <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) Message-ID: <caazlonfgwq4ep89gyctocvqggq07qaf3dyf1uxq_1jvosfr...@mail.gmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8" I'd love to see a "Convention over Configuration" approach. What I mean is that OpenSim come configured for best practices. On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) < [email protected]> wrote: > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the > code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans > for > the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's > make > some! > > I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives: > > 1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its > available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits. > > 2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability". > > 3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation. > > 4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical > network > topologies. > > 5) Bug identification & reduction. > > 6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as > naturalized bot interactions. > > 7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain > and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more > natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now. > > What are yours? Anyone? > > v/r -doug > > Dr. Douglas Maxwell > Science and Technology Manager > Virtual World Strategic Applications > U.S. Army Research Lab > Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) > (c) (407) 242-0209 > > > > -----Original Message----- > From: [email protected] > [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Justin > Clark-Casey > Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) > > I won't comment much over future direction. However, Overte was never a > governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other > things in the future (which never got realized). Power over development > direction has always been with the developers. > > CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those > projects that are very worried about getting sued. The vast majority have > no > such structures. It is very debatable whether anything other than the > open-source license is needed. > > > And there are many different project structures out there. Linux, for > example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of > authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase. > That > is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got > overwhelmed > by it). > > The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization. > Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what > happens > to the codebase. > > > > On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) > <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > Projects evolve. > > I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into > this > valuable project. The potential for technical and economic > success is > profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator. That > said, I fear > we are at a crossroads at this time with this project. > > It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open > Simulator code > have planned for the project. Is there a roadmap or some sort of > goals/objectives you are working against? What development > targets would you > like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now? > > The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up > and > supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers > for the Open > Simulator project. We've done our own internal gap analysis and > determined > where in the OS code there should be investment in stability, > monitoring, and > scalability improvements. In short, we are returning our code to > you to > adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing > terms. > > I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity > is a mistake > if you plan to encourage participation from business and > government. The CLA > was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship > acknowledging the > legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use. > > If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be > needed. > However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging > money for > service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical > behavior, by > educators, and more. Like it or not, you have created a product > that needs > management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method > that is > currently your standard operating procedures. > > Project management must evolve. > > As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as > valued > commodities, the need for different styles of management is > required. A > project with two active developers is different than a project > with 20 or > 200. > If the management does not evolve, then the project will be > limited and > growth > is not possible. I encourage you to think about a new structure > that can > handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time. > The kinds of > investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires > you to step > up and begin project planning. > > This is a community effort. > > If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or > even > receive maintenance, then the community must voice. This code > does not > belong > in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity. This code > belongs in the > hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract > funds to pay > a > staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area > code > managers. This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic > institution > of some kind. > > I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of > development for the > MOSES related Open Simulator issues. We came in this spring at a > time when > development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after > the 0.8.x > releases. What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion > of our work? > What is next for Open Simulator? > > I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse. > > v/r -doug > > Dr. Douglas Maxwell > Science and Technology Manager > Virtual World Strategic Applications > U.S. Army Research Lab > Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC) > (c) (407) 242-0209 > > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > > > > > Classification: UNCLASSIFIED > Caveats: NONE > > > > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > [email protected] > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > > -------------- next part -------------- An HTML attachment was scrubbed... URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/40c5860 c/attachment.html> ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22 ******************************************* ------------------------------ _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 23 ******************************************* _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list [email protected] http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
