I have not been following this, but want to clarify a few things.
All code donated to this project is subject to change, improvements, and
natural evolution, as features progress.
Usually, things progresses in the directionof generalization, i.e. to
allow more things to happen. The reason why this may have felt like
going backwards may be because the original contribution did not
preserve the generalization principle, i.e. it simply changed the
reported FPS without giving people the choice to continue to operate in
the old way. That was bound to have to be fixed as soon as some core
developer who cares about the lag meter (not me!) bumped into it.
(We like choices in this project. And backwards compatibility. Both are
ways of making our individual lives harder for the sake of making the
collective lives easier.)
Sometimes, things progress in the direction of elimination. For example,
XAssets and mega-regions are currently on the chopping block, because
they have been subsumed by better alternatives.
The diva distro is exactly opensim plus a few plugins, with existing
configuration variables set to specific values. So much so, that the
source of the diva distro project doesn't even include opensim, just the
plugins:
https://github.com/diva/diva-distribution
All my derivatives of opensim are plugins.
Cheers,
Diva
On 11/12/2015 10:35 AM, dz wrote:
On Thu, Nov 12, 2015 at 9:18 AM, Michael Emory Cerquoni
<[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I would also like to remind everyone that MOSES does not run stock
OpenSimulator code, they use the back end Simiangrid and are
making decisions about core code based on this, I have done
extensive testing and even helped try to make the MOSES grid run
better, took part in their FCVW Conference, I and the entire build
team experienced issues on this grid that I could not recreate on
any other grid. I personally do not want decisions being made
that will effect core services by a team of developers who are not
even using these services but what do I know according to doug I
of all people should not be part of this conversation anymore.
This is the last thing I have to say about this, I am done talking
about MOSES and their needs.
I sure hope all of the non-core developers following this discussion
realize..
A. This has NOTHING to do with the MOSES patches that were
rejected ( except for the attitude from the core respondents).
The crux of this discussion is about a backroom decision to revert a
patch that WAS accepted. The history of the submission and
acceptance of that patch has been documented extensively.
B. The MOSES development team was NOT the only party pushing this
change. NUMEROUS members of the core team and the developer
community who make the effort to participate in this forum
overwhelming agreed that the patch was a step forward.
C. Every request for inclusion into the discussion for WHY it is more
important that obsolete viewer features that NEVER correctly reported
how the MADE UP 55 FPS figure related to actual performance have been
ignored in favor of responding " Someone complained to a member of
core". The last word from Melanie on that topic was basically "
...maybe if some of the (capital B) budget was put in our pockets,
things could have gone differently..." (paraphrased).
D. The fact that MOSES uses a modified version of the OpenSim
Framework has NOTHING to to with the issue. In case you are
wondering... the DIVA distribution relies on a completely reworked
initialization system ... The Avination merge that is going on now
reflects almost 3 YEARS of modifications/deviations from OpenSim
core, and SimianGrid is the result of YEARS of performance testing
and modification of the group from Intel ( some of who are now
members of core).
E. The improvements that have resulted from the continuing efforts of
the MOSES team have been practical, and the comments that assert
otherwise are extremely misleading While they may not be reflected
in commits attributable to any of the MOSES developers.. they have
included getting the core team to upgrade the documentation related
to the proper procedures to submit patches, ( including a blog
post by diva ) and a COMPLETE re-design of the internal physics
engine interface supporting future efforts at performance
enhancements. Shame on YOU neb for insinuating NOTHING has come
from it.
F. The continued success of OpenSim depends on people who are
willing and able to help being given assistance and guidance from
the existing community. The mandate for this project is to provide a
working framework so everyone can do what they want/need. The
licenses were selected to insure that is true.. The community forums
and open meetings are designed to insure that continues.
Purporting to support those ideas, and then publicly denigrating
community members who speak up to protect other members of the
community is THE MOST COUNTERPRODUCTIVE behavior and really
shouldn't be tolerated from anyone whose mandate is to move the
project forward. I will publicly admit my respect for the efforts of
ALL members of the core team. That does NOT excuse the behavior
they have exhibited in the past week.
G. I don't expect to "get my way" by whining at the developers.
Over the years I have put my money AND my time into making OpenSim
work. Maybe Melanie doesn't remember the regions on the old IBM
grid that Fashion Research Institute hosted on her servers. Maybe
she just forgot the follow up consulting gig to connect our
servers to Science Sim when the IBM grid died. I know I spent a
considerable portion of 2 years of our budget supporting Justins'
efforts to start a business. I also devoted considerable time and
effort as a member of the Intel Science Sim senate to design, build.
and organize some of the earliest public conferences. Back in
those days Nebadon was perfectly happy to be included in a grid
that used a SimianGrid front end... Please don't insult me by
acting like I am just another ignorant user who just wants to
complain..
There is a LOT of hard work remaining to make OpenSim a success...
WE NEED everyone included. We need a core team that can step up and
identify the most important technical tasks to be addressed. We need
them to respect the efforts of the minor contributors and stop making
arbitrary decisions on when the community voices can be ignored.
We need more volunteers to do technical and non-technical work.
It is extremely discouraging to see 2 significant members of that core
team arm waving, spreading misleading information, and ignoring a
vocal part of the community because our goals are not the same as theirs.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[email protected]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
