[Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator - Accessibility and Business perspective
Nikolaj Lisberg Hansen
nlh at olio.dk
Sat Aug 15 14:07:14 UTC 2015
Hi OpenSim dev list
I think Douglas question regarding a product roadmap is very relevant, so I
will just comment on it from my point of view, were I want to use
OpenSimulator as a learning platform for K12 students.
I am still new to OpenSimulator, therefore I will try to look at the project
from a accessibility and business perspective and only comment briefly on
the architecture.
My background:
I have worked 20 years as freelance solution architect, senior developer,
product manager for Software Innovation DK and in many R&D units and
recently as enterprise search specialist. I have only developed a few
teacher and student tools with a shared region module for OpenSimulator
http://www.oligo.academy/tools/, so my ideas for architecture are not based
on or limited by practical experience with this platform - think of them as
ideas for a general discussion towards a project road map.
I think the key driver for everything else, is the accessibility and
business opportunities perspective and therefore also the viewer experience.
There has been some good ideas with the OnLook viewer and PixieViewer, but I
think the scalability and accessibility issues need to be solved in the
backend services.
My short 2 points wish list for OpenSimulator roadmap is:
Priority 1) Make support for new protocols to build fast browser based
viewers and have better scalability
To make OpenSimulator accessible to more people and use cases on any device,
by implementing backend services for browser based viewers. Perhaps using
mean.io stack with MongoDB and also threejs.org (see scene loader example),
to create a cache in MongoDB that makes is possible to build a fast browser
based viewer, by structuring data as the viewer needs it. The browser based
viewer should only have simple build tools and persist to the OpenSim
database. Is the core OpenSimulator code the right place to solve
accessibility and scalability issues or can my suggestion coexist with the
current implementation?
I think it is important to keep compability with existing software stack,
while building new services for new requirements. Linden Labs decision to
move on will make many content creators look towards OpenSim grids and
services like Kitely market.
Priority 2) Clear and up-to-date documentation
- Make better installation and system management documentation for running
hybergrids, setting up proxy servers to avoid firewall issues and any other
problems users and administrators run into.
- Update plugin and shared region module development examples and
documentation to make it easy for new developers to add features and follow
coding standards. Perhaps make it easy to search for recently updated
information on the opensimulator website.
Why is a project road map so important?
I think it's important to identify long term goals in a project road map:
like what do we need to do to make the best scalable hybergrid platform,
most secure platform for kids, to improve accessibility of this software or
to support content creators and content sharing. Having a roadmap makes sure
the objectives are common knowledge and will help the constant progress.
Having a legal entity like Overte used to be, also makes it possible to get
public funding, which can also help the progress of the project.
Why should accessibility be prioritized?
The goal of a fast browser based viewer protocol or a secure learning
environment, are requirements for schools that have a "Bring your own
device" strategy and need to adhere to children's protection act. It would
also open up the platform for many more users and business cases. When no
viewer installation is required not only school kids would benefit, but also
business cases like online interactive museums, galleries, auctions etc.
I think the support for WebGL is quite good (http://caniuse.com/#feat=webgl
and mature frameworks like ThreeJS have good examples
http://threejs.org/examples/#webgl_loader_scene. Therefore I think the
conditions to succeed are in place, if we can build backend services to
support fast browser based viewers, without the constrains of the existing
protocols.
PS: Thanks to all people, who have contributed to this great project over
the years, it has a lot of potential - let's make it more accessible to more
people ;-)
Have a nice day
Regards Nikolaj
Freelance solution architect at Olio ApS (http://olio.dk)
-----Original Message-----
From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
[mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of
opensim-dev-request at opensimulator.org
Sent: 13. august 2015 19:23
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 23
Send Opensim-dev mailing list submissions to
opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
opensim-dev-request at opensimulator.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
opensim-dev-owner at opensimulator.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Opensim-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Cinder Roxley)
2. The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Ovi Chris Rouly)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 10:32:09 -0600
From: Cinder Roxley <cinder at alchemyviewer.org>
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID: <etPan.55ccc689.174f1547.131 at Headaches.local>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
On August 13, 2015 at 8:14:30 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
(douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil) wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED?
Caveats: NONE?
Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the?
code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans
for?
the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's make?
some!?
I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:?
1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its?
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.?
2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability".?
3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.?
4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical
network?
topologies.?
5) Bug identification & reduction.?
6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as?
naturalized bot interactions.?
7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain?
and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more?
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.?
What are yours? Anyone??
v/r -doug
This can be considered my ?wish list? as I don?t really have a say in what
happens, but I?m willing to put in a fair share of work in seeing that it
can be done if others agree these are desirable targets:
1) Restating what Doug has mentioned, Clear and up-to-date API
documentation. This hinders contributors, myself included, from working on
things and leads to a lot of frustration and disappointed from
well-intentioned folks.
2) A coding standard that defines and formalizes the style of code used
throughout the codebase and is adhered to and enforced and should be pointed
to often and regularly for contributions. Good code is easy to read and
manageable. A formal coding standard is a good step in that direction.
3) OpenSim is a thread monster. There doesn?t seem to be any sort of
approach to how threading is handled. This I think would fall under Doug?s
criteria for #1.
4) I think it?s time to hop off the fence and decide whether to maintain the
Second Life protocol compatibility, (Which, let?s be honest, is pretty
lacking. There?s a lot missing post-2010.) or to break new ground. Linden
Lab has apparently made their decision regarding that. There are viewer
developers out there willing to work with OpenSimulator is doing this. I am
one of them. I just can?t be in IRC all the time, but I want to do this with
you guys and I know there are others out there willing to put in the work to
build clients to connect to new and better worlds with sensible protocols.
Please don?t take any of this as criticism as it is not meant as such. I
appreciate all the work that everyone on this project and who is affiliated
with it does.
--?
Cinder Roxley
Sent with Airmail
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/5177ff5
d/attachment-0001.html>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 13:22:57 -0400
From: "Ovi Chris Rouly" <maelzel at ieee.org>
To: <opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
Subject: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID: <000601d0d5ec$b27514c0$175f3e40$@ieee.org>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
Doug,
I like all of those ideas. They would make my life significantly easier and
my research far more plausible!
Chris
George Mason University
Fairfax, VA
>>>>>>>>>>>>
-----Original Message-----
From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
[mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of
opensim-dev-request at opensimulator.org
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 11:38 AM
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22
Send Opensim-dev mailing list submissions to
opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
opensim-dev-request at opensimulator.org
You can reach the person managing the list at
opensim-dev-owner at opensimulator.org
When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific than
"Re: Contents of Opensim-dev digest..."
Today's Topics:
1. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)
(Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US))
2. Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED) (Blake)
----------------------------------------------------------------------
Message: 1
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 14:13:52 +0000
From: "Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)"
<douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil>
To: "opensim-dev at opensimulator.org" <opensim-dev at opensimulator.org>
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
<180878FAC40F8447ADED7BA2DE0775FD33D7DE88 at ugunhpso.easf.csd.disa.mil>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans
for the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's
make some!
I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:
1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its
available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.
2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability".
3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.
4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical
network topologies.
5) Bug identification & reduction.
6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
naturalized bot interactions.
7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow terrain
and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have more
natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.
What are yours? Anyone?
v/r -doug
Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209
-----Original Message-----
From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
[mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of Justin
Clark-Casey
Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)
I won't comment much over future direction. However, Overte was never a
governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
things in the future (which never got realized). Power over development
direction has always been with the developers.
CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
projects that are very worried about getting sued. The vast majority have
no such structures. It is very debatable whether anything other than the
open-source license is needed.
And there are many different project structures out there. Linux, for
example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.
That is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got
overwhelmed by it).
The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing organization.
Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what
happens to the codebase.
On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
<douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
Projects evolve.
I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into
this
valuable project. The potential for technical and economic success
is
profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator. That
said, I fear
we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.
It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open
Simulator code
have planned for the project. Is there a roadmap or some sort of
goals/objectives you are working against? What development targets
would you
like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?
The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up
and
supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers for
the Open
Simulator project. We've done our own internal gap analysis and
determined
where in the OS code there should be investment in stability,
monitoring, and
scalability improvements. In short, we are returning our code to
you to
adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing
terms.
I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity is
a mistake
if you plan to encourage participation from business and government.
The CLA
was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship
acknowledging the
legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.
If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be
needed.
However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging
money for
service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical
behavior, by
educators, and more. Like it or not, you have created a product
that needs
management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method
that is
currently your standard operating procedures.
Project management must evolve.
As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as valued
commodities, the need for different styles of management is
required. A
project with two active developers is different than a project with
20 or
200.
If the management does not evolve, then the project will be limited
and
growth
is not possible. I encourage you to think about a new structure
that can
handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time. The
kinds of
investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires you
to step
up and begin project planning.
This is a community effort.
If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or
even
receive maintenance, then the community must voice. This code does
not
belong
in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity. This code
belongs in the
hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract
funds to pay
a
staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area
code
managers. This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic
institution
of some kind.
I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of development
for the
MOSES related Open Simulator issues. We came in this spring at a
time when
development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after
the 0.8.x
releases. What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion of
our work?
What is next for Open Simulator?
I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.
v/r -doug
Dr. Douglas Maxwell
Science and Technology Manager
Virtual World Strategic Applications
U.S. Army Research Lab
Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
(c) (407) 242-0209
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
Caveats: NONE
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: smime.p7s
Type: application/x-pkcs7-signature
Size: 5629 bytes
Desc: not available
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/ab16433
e/attachment-0001.bin>
------------------------------
Message: 2
Date: Thu, 13 Aug 2015 11:37:20 -0400
From: Blake <techplex.engineer at gmail.com>
To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?)
(UNCLASSIFIED)
Message-ID:
<CAAZLonFgWQ4eP89gYCTOcvqgGq07QAf3DyF1UXQ_1JvoSfRqTQ at mail.gmail.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
I'd love to see a "Convention over Configuration" approach. What I mean is
that OpenSim come configured for best practices.
On Thu, Aug 13, 2015 at 10:13 AM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US) <
douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Can someone explain to me why the core developers insist on control of the
> code, but refuse to manage the project? I ask again: what are your plans
> for
> the future of Open Simulator? It's ok to say you don't have any, let's
> make
> some!
>
> I'll throw out some ideas based on the MOSES goals and objectives:
>
> 1) Scale limitations lifted. We need a system that is governed by its
> available hardware and network resources, not bound by software limits.
>
> 2) Let's create clear definitions of "stability".
>
> 3) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.
>
> 4) Clear and up-to-date OS deployment guidance under numerous typical
> network
> topologies.
>
> 5) Bug identification & reduction.
>
> 6) Efficient ray tracing. Useful for simulation of sensors as well as
> naturalized bot interactions.
>
> 7) N-body physics. Would be nice to have vehicles that can follow
terrain
> and not look like Star Wars land speeders. Would also be nice to have
more
> natural avatar movement rather than the rigid animations we use now.
>
> What are yours? Anyone?
>
> v/r -doug
>
> Dr. Douglas Maxwell
> Science and Technology Manager
> Virtual World Strategic Applications
> U.S. Army Research Lab
> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
> (c) (407) 242-0209
>
>
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org
> [mailto:opensim-dev-bounces at opensimulator.org] On Behalf Of Justin
> Clark-Casey
> Sent: Thursday, August 13, 2015 7:40 AM
> To: opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)
>
> I won't comment much over future direction. However, Overte was never a
> governing entity, it was set up only to manage CLAs and maybe some other
> things in the future (which never got realized). Power over development
> direction has always been with the developers.
>
> CLAs for open-source projects tend to come from corporations running those
> projects that are very worried about getting sued. The vast majority have
> no
> such structures. It is very debatable whether anything other than the
> open-source license is needed.
>
>
> And there are many different project structures out there. Linux, for
> example, is controlled by a single individual who, along with a group of
> authorized lieutenants, controls everything that goes into the codebase.
> That
> is an evolution since Linus used to be the sole committer (and got
> overwhelmed
> by it).
>
> The direction of evolution is not inevitably to some managing
organization.
> Or at the very least, the developers much always be in charge of what
> happens
> to the codebase.
>
>
>
> On Tue, Aug 11, 2015 at 5:59 PM, Maxwell, Douglas CIV USARMY ARL (US)
> <douglas.maxwell3.civ at mail.mil> wrote:
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
> Projects evolve.
>
> I couldn't begin to estimate the amount of work that has gone into
> this
> valuable project. The potential for technical and economic
> success is
> profound and I see a bright future for the Open Simulator. That
> said, I fear
> we are at a crossroads at this time with this project.
>
> It is unclear at this time what the maintainers of the Open
> Simulator code
> have planned for the project. Is there a roadmap or some sort of
> goals/objectives you are working against? What development
> targets would you
> like to see met in 12, 16, and 24 months from now?
>
> The MOSES project has needs & requirements that we are stepping up
> and
> supporting with internal development, but we aren't the drivers
> for the Open
> Simulator project. We've done our own internal gap analysis and
> determined
> where in the OS code there should be investment in stability,
> monitoring, and
> scalability improvements. In short, we are returning our code to
> you to
> adhere and abide by applicable derivative source code licensing
> terms.
>
> I believe the removal of the Overte as a formal governing entity
> is a mistake
> if you plan to encourage participation from business and
> government. The CLA
> was viewed by my organization as a formalized relationship
> acknowledging the
> legal responsibility of open source code stewardship and use.
>
> If this were simply a hobby, then Overte and the CLA would not be
> needed.
> However, the Open Simulator is being used by businesses charging
> money for
> service, by researchers studying human behavior and technical
> behavior, by
> educators, and more. Like it or not, you have created a product
> that needs
> management and attention at a higher level than the ad-hoc method
> that is
> currently your standard operating procedures.
>
> Project management must evolve.
>
> As projects are started at the grass roots and then emerge as
> valued
> commodities, the need for different styles of management is
> required. A
> project with two active developers is different than a project
> with 20 or
> 200.
> If the management does not evolve, then the project will be
> limited and
> growth
> is not possible. I encourage you to think about a new structure
> that can
> handle influx of large amounts of donated code in a short time.
> The kinds of
> investments needed to make this a world class simulator requires
> you to step
> up and begin project planning.
>
> This is a community effort.
>
> If the community values this work and would like to see it grow or
> even
> receive maintenance, then the community must voice. This code
> does not
> belong
> in the hands of a gov't agency or corporate entity. This code
> belongs in the
> hands of a strong non-profit that can handle grant and contract
> funds to pay
> a
> staff of maintainers, code reviewers, testers, and functional area
> code
> managers. This could be an Overte spin-off, or even an academic
> institution
> of some kind.
>
> I've given you a glimpse into what the next 9 months of
> development for the
> MOSES related Open Simulator issues. We came in this spring at a
> time when
> development seemed to be winding down and things were quiet after
> the 0.8.x
> releases. What will you do when we reach the logical conclusion
> of our work?
> What is next for Open Simulator?
>
> I look forward to your feedback and constructive discourse.
>
> v/r -doug
>
> Dr. Douglas Maxwell
> Science and Technology Manager
> Virtual World Strategic Applications
> U.S. Army Research Lab
> Simulation & Training Technology Center (STTC)
> (c) (407) 242-0209
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
>
>
>
> Classification: UNCLASSIFIED
> Caveats: NONE
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL:
<http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-dev/attachments/20150813/40c5860
c/attachment.html>
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 22
*******************************************
------------------------------
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
Opensim-dev at opensimulator.org
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
End of Opensim-dev Digest, Vol 17, Issue 23
*******************************************
More information about the Opensim-dev
mailing list