I agree with Ted, it's just another useless TLD, and just another waste.
There are plenty of TLD's, and another stupid TLD is meaningless.
Nobody will use it, and it's just a waste. I see no real benefit as well.
Users could simply keep their current domain name, and just use a
That's my experience too Rich. I can access our Opensim 0,6,8 (URM)
setup fine via SL Viewer 2 but the special Linden Labs style single
prim plans are all white textures, and the sea and reflections in it
look most odd.
From: Rich White rich.lynn.wh...@gmail.com
... but the tree textures
There are .im domains (Isle of Man) and, guess what, opens.im is available.
https://www.nic.im/HomeDomainAvailable.mth?domainname=opens.imx=0y=0
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:26 PM, Mark Malewski mark.malew...@gmail.com wrote:
I agree with Ted, it's just another useless TLD, and just another waste.
Just tried the 2.0 client yesterday (main grid) and was wondering the same
thing as soon as I seen it. Hope OpenSim will be compatible with it soon, and
that this won't be a lot of work for the devs.
Once all risks (such as the inventory deletion issue) are out of the way, I
would love to
My opinion in this case is different. If Linden Lab creates a viewer that is
not compatible with OpenSim is a LL problem, not a problem of OpenSim. I
would not use time or effort to develop for OpenSim nothing. If someday I
return to going into SL, I will use or the new viewer or rather an old
I think the changes in SL Viewer 2.0 are so important I have
basically switched already to using it as my main view. I just kept
one machine on 1.23 in case all hell breaks loose! This is beta software.
The shared media stuff is great, we have Google Wave, Adobe Connect,
sync whiteboards and
Peer to peer is just simply box to box, it has nothing to do with an
opensim server and a viewer both running on
the same box, yet don't doesn't mean these boxes can't run opensim and
a viewer on each box.
It would look like this:
[ viewer - opensim ] - [ opensim - viewer ]
That's peer to
That doesn't answer my question.
There are two opensim boxes, with each connected directly to each other,
peer to peer.
Are you saying, of only these two boxes, that neither of them can a client?
I don't see the latency issue here when the client is directly on the
opensim box.
Melanie
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 10:34:08AM -0800, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
If everything is peer-2-peer where each client runs it's own simulator,
there would be no need for a grid server. It's foolish and stupid to
consider people would only want to connect to a grid server. That's
certainly not how
But this open source, so why should the topic be suddenly closed to
server centric ideas.
This isn't open server this is open simulator
I think it would be great idea for both simulators to actually simulate
the same exact region, and then they would only need to update what changed.
A
I told you, for me, this topic has ended. What you are talking about
has been tried and failed miserably.
I have no more to say about this. Any further message about this
addressing me will be considered trolling. Have a nice day.
Melanie
Dzonatas Sol wrote:
But this open source, so why
.im IS an ICANN-approved TLD. With the domain opens.im it is possible
to create mysim.opens.im, yoursim.opens.im etc. as subdomains.
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 7:39 PM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote:
I'm saying that one of them will run the sim. The other connects to
it. Even if the other also
Very nicely explained Christa. My own experience with P2P virtual worlds is
very poor. Latency, offline spaces, lack of structure, no fun at all.
-Original Message-
From: opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de
[mailto:opensim-dev-boun...@lists.berlios.de] On Behalf Of Cristina Videira
Hi,
peer to peer simulation is not practical for many different reasons.
Latency being the chief one.
OpenSim is not going to be a peer to peer system, therefore your
suggestion is off topic. Opensim doesn't need another TLD, and it is
not what you are envisioning. OpenSim firmly embraces the
I have been experimenting with combining and/or offloading physics
simulations on physics capable clients (not LL based) with OpenSim, but
nothing has been released as open source as of yet. It's not clear to me how
a new TLD would affect this though, or why it might be required.
-Dahlia
(Core)
You're making up your own definition of p2p in the context of opensim,
your definition being an opensim server and a viewer both running on
the same box. That's not what p2p is, generally, although one could
imagine a distribution that would have those as a unit. For true p2p
VWs see
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 12:40:27PM -0800, Dzonatas Sol wrote:
If there is no need for a grid server, then there would be no need
for a TOS that would try to control a TPV.
...and OpenSim has no such TOS.
If we modify LL's official viewer and add client-side simulation to
help dispel latency,
Hi
P2P = http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer-to-peer
P2P as in Point-2-Point is something different. P2P describes a
decentralized network, it does NOT describe standardized server-client
communication.
This is actually not debatable, this is a stated fact. A PC could belong to
a company or library
18 matches
Mail list logo
