I'd like to remark that the information you found is just the data of the
ModularSystems website, and all of the other viewer directory listings look
about the same as Emerald's. The actual real-life name(s) of people involved
aren't required to be publicly viewable, but Linden Lab does have them.
Nicky Perian wrote:
> +1
> A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and template
> to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get past the
> login screens.
Isn't just sending the login info form the laters offical viewer the
bewst way to get passed techical blacklistin
We certainly should follow the bright example of Emerald / Modularsystems,
where you Discrete are a member of. A pseudo company set up and owned
by known banned griefer JCool aka who revived his banned account(s) under
the names of Fractured Crystal/Fractured Modularsystems.
Back to their registra
FYI
https://sourceforge.net/projects/lsleditor/
It was released to the FOSS community yesterday!
YAY!
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev
Please read the policies before posting to k
Well it's probably a bit late to ask this but
I would never call myself a developer, but I do compile the source code quite
a bit... playing with compiler flags, trying patches from the JIRA and etc...
After a quick read, its looking like I have to give any viewer I compile a
name and versi
I am trying to set up my Windows XP system to compile the viewer (I
have the SG 1.3 sources) and probably am 80-90% of the way there, but
now have run into some issues and am looking for someone to help me
work through them -- any volunteers? I am not a noob, just not
familiar with the PC developm
It would be helpful if you could just give us the error or tell us the
problem you're having, then we might be able to point you in the right
direction.
Thanks
Tom
On 29/04/2010 22:11, Jonathan Welch wrote:
> I am trying to set up my Windows XP system to compile the viewer (I
> have the SG 1.3
I am trying to set up my Windows XP system to compile the viewer (I
have the SG 1.3 sources) and probably am 80-90% of the way there, but
now have run into some issues and am looking for someone to help me
work through them -- any volunteers? I am not a noob, just not
familiar with the PC developm
Too many people are trying to answer the question "is it possible to
get a malicious viewer registered on the TPV directory". While the
answer is most certainly yes the question is rather irrelevant. The
important question is "will malicious viewers be put in the TPV
directory". I'm pretty sure tha
This discussion seems to have been created with misleading intentions.
Because some TPV creators don't want to reveal any personal information
about themselves, they can't be posted on the TPV directory, and because of
this, it's understandable they might view the directory as unfair. But, this
do
That's right. However, note what I implied: a blacklist would be worse by
misleading users even more, and it would discourage TPV usage in general.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 3:54 PM, Tigro Spottystripes <
tigrospottystri...@gmail.com> wrote:
> -BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
> Hash: SHA512
>
> D
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
the disclaimer instead of being hidden in small print in the bottom
should be the first thing in the page, in big bold red font, to at least
start helping users be less confused about how much trust they should
put on the viewers listed
On 29/4/2010
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
Discrete, in both ways you can have viewers that the users think can be
trusted, but actually shouldn't
On 29/4/2010 15:04, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable
> than a list of untrust
_
From: opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com
[mailto:opensource-dev-boun...@lists.secondlife.com] On Behalf Of Ron Festa
Sent: Thursday, April 29 2010 20:27
To: Henri Beauchamp
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Viewer blacklist to replace the TPV
Hi,
After a long hiatus and a battle with the internal (LL side) build system,
we finally got new fresh export bundles built (see SNOW-604 that chronicles
that task). That problem prevented Snowglobe 1.x binaries to be built so I'm
happy to announce that the 1.4.0 Snowglobe trunk build is now buil
>
>
> This would be only true if LL was to *guarantee* that the listed viewer
> can *actually* be trusted, which is *not* the case with the current
> implementation of teh TPV directory.
>
>
The current TPV directory is a list of certified viewers. Despite claiming
the list is Self-Certified those
Not only that, but the only way the whitelist can work as a whitelist is
if LL not only tests the viewers on the list, but compiles the list
themselves. That means seeking out TPVs and accepting recommendations
from users, not just sitting around waiting for the makers to send them in.
In my op
Users could then assume all unlisted viewers are safe enough for use, which
is far more misleading than assuming a specific few are safe. A few who are
both known and have contact information on file, no less. If they don't make
this assumption, an action which any smart user should choose, then in
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 14:04:21 -0400, Discrete Dreamscape wrote:
> A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable than
> a list of untrusted ones.
This would be only true if LL was to *guarantee* that the listed viewer
can *actually* be trusted, which is *not* the case with
A list of trusted entities is virtually always more robust and reliable than
a list of untrusted ones.
Weigh the two possibilities that would occur and their consequences, given
that the user is making assumptions, as you say:
- User believes viewers ON the whitelist are the ONLY ones that can be
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 05:40:15 -0700 (PDT), Nicky Perian wrote:
> +1
> A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and
> template to use for more bad viewers that could be modified and get
> past the login screens.
What you must understand is that the TPV policy is in no way a mean
to p
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:12 -0500, Michael Dickson wrote:
> And for that reason its actually a negative since it
> would give a possibly false assurance that a viewer not being listed is
> "ok". IMO the directory is doing what its meant to do, give an
> assurance that LL and the viewer creator h
I told everyone form the start that it was a VERY bad idea
to add any viewer to it.
This list should have stayed totally empty.
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 10:56:58AM +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> Hi again, folks.
>
> Thinking about the TPV directory, I came to the conclusion that this
> tool, fir
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 09:10 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> > nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> > because of privacy and loc
+1
A blacklist would just give potential bad actors a menu and template to use for
more bad viewers that could be modified and get past the login screens.
From: "til...@xp2.de"
To: Henri Beauchamp
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Thu, April 29, 2
Am Donnerstag, 29. April 2010 13:46:48 schrieb Robert Martin:
> 2 the Onyx List: posted on the site of that green viewer and is a
> subset of the list used by the CDS banlink system
in related news, psyke phaeton has introduced a feature in his home security
orbs to "blanket-ban" based on last
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-
Hash: SHA512
a self-certified whitelist that LL themselves don't stand by it is of no
use either
On 29/4/2010 08:30, til...@xp2.de wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>>
>>> This is a bad idea, as the TP
On Thu, Apr 29, 2010 at 7:30 AM, wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
>
>> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>>
>> > This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
>> > non-blacklisted viewer.
>>
>> If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted vi
Henri Beauchamp wrote ..
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
>
> > This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
> > non-blacklisted viewer.
>
> If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted viewers
> left will be the TPV compliant ones, so t
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 03:41:50 -0700, Rob Nelson wrote:
> This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
> non-blacklisted viewer.
If they do, and after some time, the only non-blacklisted viewers
left will be the TPV compliant ones, so that's actually a good thing...
Henri.
__
This is a bad idea, as the TPV violators would merely migrate to a
non-blacklisted viewer.
On Thu, 2010-04-29 at 12:01 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:33 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> >
> > > Instead
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 09:10:33 +, Opensource Obscure wrote:
> On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>
> > Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> > nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> > because of privacy and l
On Thu, 29 Apr 2010 10:56:58 +0200, Henri Beauchamp wrote:
> Instead of a white list for which Linden Lab actually guarantees
> nothing and to which some developers won't be able to register anyway
> because of privacy and local Law concerns, why not making a black
> list ?
>
> The black list w
Hi again, folks.
Thinking about the TPV directory, I came to the conclusion that this
tool, first intended as an advertizing one, doesn't currently reach
its goal and even mistakes some users who think they will not be able
to use their favourite viewer after the 30th of April if it's not
listed i
Anyone who has ever had a stalker (and I unfortunately have, so I can
speak with some authority on the subject) will appreciate why it's
important not to disclose your real name and address in public.
Where it comes to trust, Henri has a point here - do you have the
address of every single develop
On Wed, 28 Apr 2010 16:16:37 -0700, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> Henri,
>
> The viewer is required to comply, just make your viewer comply and don't
> register in the directory. If they are to prevent any viewer that does not
> comply with the TPV to connect to the grid I am glad for it.
And that's wha
36 matches
Mail list logo
