There are viewer developers. Several of them. I myself maintain two OpenSim compatible viewers, Alchemy and Radegast. Lirusatio doesn’t show any signs of abandoning Singularity’s support. The sky hasn’t fallen. To be frank, Firestorm is a massive codebase with a very unorthodox and hard to test development cycle. It is frustrating to work on. I should know, I spent the better part of five years bringing Firestorm up to snuff OpenSim-wise, but I do not work on that project anymore. For ease of migration the from proprietary world to the opensource metaverse, I hope Firestorm is able to get past this and remain compatible, but if it doesn’t, there are several alternatives.
On September 21, 2019 at 7:41:54 AM, drWhiet (drwh...@spacefriends.de) wrote: Ok, so I understood that if there is no viewer dev out there that takes the job of creating a new viewer we are „stucked“ with the currently working viewers - which I am fine with as there is no new stuff in openSim? Did you Opensim Devs have a plan B than? Best regards, Wordfromthe Wise > Am 20.09.2019 um 17:31 schrieb Cinder Roxley <cin...@alchemyviewer.org>: > > Now I understand the concern better. Thank you. I do remember with the > release of Viewer 2 from Linden Lab, that OpenSim regions were being > hammered pretty heavily with unsupported MOAP requests among other issues, > and many grids blocked Viewer 2 derivatives because they were causing > instability, so it makes sense. > > It’s been a while since Alchemy has had a new release, but there should be > another one soon. Might be well worth it for Firestorm to rebase their > current OpenSim support on Alchemy’s if they are unable to tow the line on > their own. Just a thought. > > > On September 20, 2019 at 10:14:03 AM, Leal Duarte (ajldua...@sapo.pt) wrote: > > Hi, > > Yes but core team viewer project is a long run one, will not happen > any time soon, if ever. > > Today we only have viewers, like yours, singularity, firestorm, > etc, etc. > > OpenSim never had full SL protocol or features, (to be more correct > it has at most, part of what viewer usually known as TVPs have), and > never will. > > To make things short, the "big deal" here is just the impact that > "AS IS" official statement may have on currently running opensim code, > in fact even future code. > > Firestorm team or any other team, have the right to decide they own > terms, we have the right to prevent potentially having regions crashing > all over the place. > > As i said, i hope this is just a temporary glitch in the matrix, if > i may say so > > Regards, > > Ubit. > > > > >> On 20-Sep-19 15:40, Cinder Roxley wrote: >> It was made clear at last OSCC (and for several years prior) that Second >> Life viewer compatibility was not a goal, and that core team would be >> developing its own viewer as a baseline to deviate from the Second Life >> protocol, which it hasn’t really been compliant with since 2010, so what’s >> the big deal? >> >> >>> On September 20, 2019 at 9:22:51 AM, Leal Duarte (ajldua...@sapo.pt) >> wrote: >> >> Hi, >> >> We have been informed that Firestorm team changed again their >> policy about OpenSimulator support. >> >> Reading their statements we can only understand that they changed >> from having a forgotten, basically dead fork, to just provide a AS IS >> viewer. >> >> They also inform us that AS IS will mean addiction of code just >> copied from Linden Labs viewer and removal of other code may include >> what they call old protocols. >> >> Firestorm team has the right to do whatever they decide, no >> question about that. >> >> Such "AS IS" Firestorm viewer, in the terms currently defined by >> them, CAN NOT be accepted as viewer for OpenSimulator/Opensim. >> >> We all hope this is just some misunderstanding/disorientation >> facing the real technical difficulties. >> >> But since we can't predict when or what a new release "for opensim, >> almost for opensim, or whatever" will be, and knowing that just new BoM >> code may cause issues on all version but current dev master... >> >> I must recommended all to NOT UPGRADE TO SUCH VERSIONS, and inform >> all your users to no do so, until this situation is clarified. >> >> Best Regards, >> >> Ubit, (Leal Duarte) >> >> ps: do not think i did not tried to talk with them, for example about >> BoM potential issues and possible fixes, wasted hours just being >> ignored.. but details.. >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-dev mailing list >> Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org >> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev >> _______________________________________________ >> Opensim-dev mailing list >> Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org >> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev > _______________________________________________ > Opensim-dev mailing list > Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org > http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev _______________________________________________ Opensim-dev mailing list Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
