The CB version we have in trunk is another implementation of similar
concepts. It has some hooks for some features, which were never
implemented, that the new system doesn't have yet, but the modular
system make them entirely possible.
At this point, the CB in trunk is stagnant. It's a
I fully understand that argument Stefan (although I do not agree with it). What
I do not understand is how a currency module can be considered risky, but the
entire asset server (holding everything that people have bought with an
external currency module) is not considered even more of a risk.
Rock,
If I understand your question correctly, the answer is that if you as a grid
service provider have enabled being able to invest economically in assets thru
the use of an external currency module, it is you as a responsible grid service
provider that has to make sure the currency
This reminds me of a situation I encountered in Second Life last Autumn. I
logged in on a Saturday morning and decided to sell a piece of land I no
longer needed. I set the asking price at 10,000 Lindens.
Right about that time Linden Lad encountered a problem and began a rolling
restart of
Random thoughts:
I've always thought that the decision to not include currency in OpenSim was
an ill thought out decision for many reasons. As people have noted, the
liability issue is a red herring. I believe there are much greater
liability issues in the areas of intellectual property,
Aldon,
Clearly, there are issues about people not understanding what it means to
use alpha code, as we learned last April, but that is also not a reasonable
excuse for not producing code. All code is alpha at some stage.
I can assure you that neither of us are looking for excuses not to
-1. Lets not remove any existing OpenSim servers.
Lets *start* with some documentation so we know what is being proposed.
Charles
From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com
To: opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de
Sent: Wednesday, July 8, 2009 7:28:37 AM
Subject: Re:
if (documentation) return +1;
Every page you write on the wiki, god saves a fluffy bunny rabbit..
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 06:47 -0700, Charles Krinke wrote:
+1 also. We need some wiki documentation for BUST to describe how
folks can configure and use it.
Charles
Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get
people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old
servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
Further, if the old servers are kept, they will have to be
maintained indefinitely and so will
Very well put, Neb. Some, it seems, argue simply for the sake of argument
and the perception that open-source equates free labor.
I myself have had disagreements with certain other open-source solutions and
I choose to take advantage of my disagreeable nature and learned enough C#
to implement
Certainly.
You need to explain what it is your are proposing. It is not reasonable to vote
+1 on an unknown.
So, please describe your vision, in writing, on the wiki, and then folks can
feel comfortable about what you are proposing.
Lets not get the cart before the horse.
Charles
What is proposed is actually already been discussed and well
underway. It's already runnable, too.
This is not about introducing the new servers, that has already
happened through Diva's and my work, it's about removing the old. I
only asked about removing the old servers, and I said
Information on the B.U.S.T. server and how to set up a grid with it
is at http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Configuration. The previous
documentation has been moved to
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/LegacyServers and linked from the
Configuration page
Melanie
Melanie wrote:
What is proposed is
Stefan, et al.,
I'm glad you think this is a good idea. I'm heading on vacation for a
couple weeks leaving this weekend, so I'll be hard to reach. However, if we
can get the project up and going before I go, that would be great.
Questions I have: Who wrote and/or has copies of the
B.U.S.T. is Basic Universal Server Technology. The prompt can be
changed in the configuration file, though, for those without a sense
of humor. I fully expect things to get renamed before 1.0. On the
other hand, the server is named OpenSim.Server.exe, no body parts there!
As soon as connectors
I would also seem reasonable to me that some smaller grids test the 'BUST'
notion and report success before we move forward in considering in obsoleting
our existing grid server executables.
Charles
From: Sean Dague sda...@gmail.com
To:
Well, this may or may not be, Melanie. But, I would feel a whole lot more
comfortable about the whole proposal *after* at least two different groups
report success in configuring BUST and that it is not busted.
At that point, we need enough clear and concise documentation on the wiki to
allow
maybe you can state to me where open simulator claims it is ready in anyway
for production levels though, the opensimulator team makes zero claims that
this software is in anyway ready for any commercial purposes, I would say if
your uploading items into opensimulator that have monetary value, and
One huge difference between having OpenSim assets stolen vs. having real
money stolen is that a lost asset means the *possible* loss of future
sales, not the immediate loss of real money. Having money/account
information stolen has 2 major disadvantages, 1) It's an immediate and
substantial
for those clicking this link you will get a empty page, be sure to at the
DOT to the end. ..!!!
On Wed, Jul 8, 2009 at 8:44 AM, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote:
Config file docs for it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/B.U.S.T.
Melanie
BlueWall Slade wrote:
++ MW, sounds like a sane
Mike Dickson wrote:
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 14:48 +, Melanie wrote:
Charles, I said documentation is on it's way. I would like to get
people's opinions on moving forward with deprecating the old
servers, not people's opinions on the obvious need for documentation.
Further, if the old
Melanie:
I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have sufficient
momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need to go out of our way to
provide and evolutionary path and that of necessity must include sufficient
documentation to allow our users to use OpenSim with
We will be pleased to test BUST without the fears to get Busted...
Sacha
Le 8 juil. 09 à 18:33, Charles Krinke a écrit :
Melanie:
I think the key here is 'evolution' and not 'revolution'. We have
sufficient momentum and sufficient users with OpenSim that we need
to go out of our way to
Sacha:
That would be uber-cool if you could test the BUST notions and report back your
opinion. It would allow a number of folks to feel more comfortable about these
proposed changes.
Thank you kindly.
Charles
From: Sacha Magne sacha.ma...@k-grid.com
To:
MW wrote:
I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
~Sean
--
Sean Hennessee
UC Irvine
... . .- -. / . -. -. . ... ... . .
On Jul 8, 2009, at 7:51 PM, Sean Hennessee wrote:
MW wrote:
I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
nice acronym - perhaps too JBoss-y a name though, and it being also a
server framework (the open source j2ee thing)
Not bad, not bad at all.
Sean Hennessee wrote:
MW wrote:
I also would rather a different name than BUST, and also before any
protocol changes are done, see full documentation about the plans.
How about BOSS? Basic Open Simulator Servers?
~Sean
The core developers have for valid reasons (whatever others may think
and argue, they are - at least - subjectively valid) for not including a
money module.
I think it would be best to let this debate rest. I believe continuing
to argue for a money module to be part of the core, is showing
Melanie wrote:
Hi,
this has been spoken about extensively, mostly on IRC. It is NOT
about _changing_ OGS1. It's about replacing it.
fyi, as has been said many times in the past, speaking about something on IRC
does _not_ mean that everybody knows about
it. Peer review must occur either
Hi,
Justin Clark-Casey wrote:
But the real question was about your statement
But changes are planned as we are moving to more sane protocols.
source: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-dev/2009-July/006992.html
Who is the 'we' in this? What are these protocols? Why are they
Well as Justin said, there needs to be plans/documents detailing all the
details of the replacement protocols before the process of replacing them is
began.
--- On Wed, 8/7/09, Melanie mela...@t-data.com wrote:
From: Melanie mela...@t-data.com
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] Deprecate
I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in a compatible
manner and not backwards.
Certainly new implementations of servers, executables, protocols and the like
are encouraged, but we also need to make sure that everything continues to work.
Perhaps this new work should
Which is precisely what is intended. But the old dinosaur servers
are in the way.
You can rest assured no grids will be harmed in the making of these
servers - to paraphrase the movie industry
Melanie
Charles Krinke wrote:
I believe it is pretty important to ensure that we go forwards in
Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested.
This seems to me a reasonable and proper way to change the underlying grid
servers without having a revolution in mid-air.
Charles
This is what branches are for.
Melanie wrote:
This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
Melanie
Charles Krinke wrote:
Sounds like a good argument to put this new work on the forge.
That way, we can get it wrung out, completed, functional, tested.
This seems to me a reasonable
I'm glad someone besides me said that...
Mike
On Wed, 2009-07-08 at 22:26 +, Gryc Ueusp wrote:
This is what branches are for.
Melanie wrote:
This can not be reasonably done on the forge..
Melanie
___
Opensim-dev mailing list
It doesn't need to be segregated. This can be done in trunk
perfectly well. We have had bad experiences with branches and I
believe there is a general aversion to them now.
There is no need to push this outside of the core scope, especially
since it's already well underway. This whole
Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into trunk.
There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is implemented.
But anyway if its not documented then my vote would be -1 on it going into
trunk. Even if it was a optional extra, it would still lead
Where are all these remarks of great acclaim? This is the first I've heard
about a new protocol being designed without any plan at all.
I'm all for a new protocol but there needs to be a design and peer review.
Please stop adding any more work on a new protocol to the trunk until that
Firstly, the acclaim is for the connector/services architecture. Not
any new protocol. There isn't one yet.
Secondly, this can't be developed on a drawing board. It needs
community testing and input. It needs to grow. Asking for full
documentation ahead of implementation is the same as killing
Hi,
MW wrote:
Well my vote is that the new protocol is documented before it goes into
trunk. There is no reason that the protocol can't be designed before it is
implemented.
The specification itself is a moving target that needs commnity input.
But anyway if its not documented then my
41 matches
Mail list logo
