Hi:<br><br>Morgaine, I agree with you except:<br><br><ul><li>SL is based on highly <b>centralized</b> concepts of <i><b>identity</b>, storage and control</i>,
which come together to create either a walled garden or a prison
planet, depending on one's perspective. Whatever one's worldview, the
end result is badly non-scalable in those three areas. SL suffers
hugely from that non-scalability despite the relatively small size of
the service at this early stage. Opensim needs decentralized /
distributed mechanisms for <i><b>identity</b>, storage and control</i> if it is to scale for Internet-wide adoption.</li></ul><br>How can I trust anyone who hasn't been authorized through a well known trusting system? Well, if you mean systems like OpenID, forget my comments. If not, can you explain that?<br>
<br>About the topic...<br><br>Except with the lack of huge, updated and good documentation, and having into account that there are no money incomes (no business angels out of here)... it's a miracle for the project to be still alive :-)<br>
<br>No complaints about opensim, no opinions about Blue Mars and the rest...<br><br><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">2009/11/24 Morgaine <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com">morgaine.dinova@googlemail.com</a>></span><br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="im">On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Len Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lenwbrown@gmail.com" target="_blank">lenwbrown@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
<br><div style="margin-left: 40px;">For me
the shock came when I was abruptly informed that <b>"OpenSim is not Second
Life, is not intended to be like Second Life, nor ever will."</b> I still
haven't the foggiest idea what this developer had smoked for them to so
strongly assert that incredibly false statement.</div></blockquote><br><br></div>Len, let me give you an alternative perspective on that quote to help you see the reasons for it. I'm not on the Opensim team, but after five years in SL, two years in AWG, and a year of working on future VW protocols in our IETF group, I have some background to know why Opensim needs to distance itself from SL:<br>
<br><ul><li>SL's statically tiled resource architecture is badly <b>non-scalable</b>, because most resource usage in VWs cannot be statically mapped (demand moves around). The inability to assign resources dynamically in SL results in huge overload in busy places and gross wastage in idle areas. It also limits the number of participants in events and the bandwidth of their interaction, as well as the size and complexity of everything in a region. This architecture is fundamental to SL, yet it is a recipe for failure. As long as Opensim adheres to the SL model, Opensim will be similarly non-scalable.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>The LSL scripting language is linguistically weak, semantically obscure, and lacking in the glue that could allow components to cooperate effectively. As a result, individual scripts are quite underpowered and inefficient, and multi-script constructions do not scale well in complexity because the overheads of cooperation are so large. That's a bad restriction on progress which Opensim needs to leave behind.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>LSL scripts are not scalable in power or size, and this will continue to be true even after SL allows C# and other CLR languages to be used. There is no possibility of using more CPU power for scripting than is available in one single simulator in SL. That is not a good foundation upon which to build an ambitious future of clever components.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>SL's simulation environment is non-portable, having evolved over time into a plethora of special cases that will not be accurately replicable anywhere else. In effect this means that there will never be effective interop with SL's scripted objects. It would not be a useful goal to seek compatibility with what could realistically be described as an "ill-defined mess".</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>SL's object and type systems are <b>non-extensible</b>, so compatibility with SL means living in the past, and worse, living in a past defined entirely by one slow-moving company. Tying the capabilities of Opensim to that millstone would be a disaster --- it would ensure the death of Opensim versus any extensible alternative that may appear. Developing new extensible forms of world data beyond SL's original set is a must for Opensim's survival as a modern VW platform.<br>
</li></ul><br><ul><li>SL's viewer has deep knowledge of SL semantics because the client and server were designed for each other rather than designed as endpoints of a standard protocol. This has the very bad consequence that future VW viewers would need to know about SL specifics in order to interoperate with SL, which is a poor approach that doesn't scale to metaverse-wide diversity. Opensim needs to leave world-specific kludges behind if it has ambitions to underpin a highly diverse metaverse of worlds, and this means leaving the SL viewer behind.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>SL's constructed objects are <b>non-hierarchical</b>, which means that creators cannot use objects created by others as subcomponents. This restriction completely blocks the hierarchical engineering process that is the basis of progress in RL. In SL you always have to build from "raw materials", so it is not possible to ride on the shoulders of giants, nor harness a huge pyramid of people skills. Even Philip and Cory Linden admitted that this was a mistake -- see <a href="https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Prim_and_Object_Hierarchy" target="_blank">https://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/Prim_and_Object_Hierarchy</a> . We don't want to live with their mistake.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>SL is based on highly <b>centralized</b> concepts of <i>identity, storage and control</i>, which come together to create either a walled garden or a prison planet, depending on one's perspective. Whatever one's worldview, the end result is badly non-scalable in those three areas. SL suffers hugely from that non-scalability despite the relatively small size of the service at this early stage. Opensim needs decentralized / distributed mechanisms for <i>identity, storage and control</i> if it is to scale for Internet-wide adoption.</li>
</ul><br><ul><li>From a futurist angle, Second Life has very narrow horizons and barely pays lip service to the <b><i>virtual</i></b> aspect of "virtual worlds". Nobody could claim that a Flatland of square land tiles all featuring the same Earth-like look and physics pushes the envelope of the imagination. To boldly go where Lindens did not go before (topologically and geographically or spatially) will be one of the most appreciated developments in Opensim. SL's obsession with RL is an unwanted constraint in VWs, and we need to go beyond it.<br>
</li></ul><br><br>That is not the full list of problems with SL, but hopefully it serves to illustrate some of the concerns that VW developers have to consider in the light of the SL legacy. While Linden Lab deserves much applause for their vision and for their work in creating Second Life, many years have now passed, and lessons have been learned. Compatibility with SL must not be the end goal of Opensim because of issues like those highlighted above.<br>
<br>From a longer perspective, SL represents only the first step in the evolution of virtual worlds. It is no surprise that most Opensim developers wish to go beyond that first step, learning from past mistakes and finding better models for the future.<br>
<br>I mentioned earlier our work at the IETF on new VW protocols, in which LL are a leading party --- see <a href="https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx" target="_blank">https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/ogpx</a> , the mailing list of the VWRAP working group. What may surprise you is that even Lindens know that the current SL is not a good model for the future, which is why the protocols being discussed go far beyond their legacy ones. Indeed, Lindens will be facing a huge rewrite if this work bears fruit. When even Lindens don't wish their future to be constrained by the current SL design because they know its many problems, this really highlights how bad it would be for the Opensim team to do so. :-)<br>
<br>I hope that one or more of these issues resonates with you, and makes it a bit clearer why Opensim really cannot afford to align itself with SL. There is no future in looking backwards.<br><font color="#888888"><br>
<br>Morgaine.<br><br><br>
<br><br><br><br>=======================================</font><div><div></div><div class="h5"><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 1:06 PM, Len Brown <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:lenwbrown@gmail.com" target="_blank">lenwbrown@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">Rock,<br><br> I sympathize with you on many levels. I've also had my doubts regarding the future of OpenSim, but I have also maintained some degree of faith that things will pull through in the end.<br>
<br> For me the shock came when I was abruptly informed that "OpenSim is not Second Life, is not intended to be like Second Life, nor ever will." I still haven't the foggiest idea what this developer had smoked for them to so strongly assert that incredibly false statement.<br>
<br> For me, the enjoyment of OpenSim has come from my intense devotion to building and skinning. In fact, for the last few months I've been working on a full region that has many hundreds of skins, clothes, hair, furniture, etc, etc, that I'd like to package up as an OAR and give out freely, since repeatedly I've been told that instead of giving money to help further OpenSim I'd do more proactively by giving content. So I plan to do just that and give my money to other open source initiatives that matter to me.<br>
<br> I have a passion for writing, and have thought many times that one of the greatest powers OpenSim would gain is having simple, straightforward, step-by-step instructions on how to download, compile, install, administer and overall just plain operate the core applications. What kills me is that everyone who does a search for OpenSim inevitably hits the <a href="http://opensimulator.org" target="_blank">opensimulator.org</a> site and that is where the massive roadblock presents itself. It's useless for most and irrelevant to the few who consider themselves OpenSim experts.<br>
<br> Heck, even now on the configuration page it still displays info for 0.6.6 including (months old) known bugs in setting up region xml files. If there was appointed a volunteer whose sole job was to keep information on <a href="http://opensimulator.org" target="_blank">opensimulator.org</a> relevant that one task would resolve a mountain of negativity right there. I sit here in front of my computers a good 10 to 12 hours a day.<br>
<br> I would sincerely love to contribute to the OpenSim project, especially in documentation support. But the thing holding me back is communication. If I cannot get a straight answer on who to GIVE money to in order to help, then I stand little chance of getting clear, straight answers from developers when asking about issues I need to consider and incorporate in documentation.<br>
<br> If communication is a hurdle we can all overcome, with a genuine and heart-felt effort to relay information, motives, and plans with one another, then I'd sincerely appreciate having the opportunity to personally contribute. I'm not a programmer today, but have a degree in programming fro the 90's (so much has changed my degree is practically useless in that regard). But I do know how to explain things and relay information in simple terms. But only if my own questions will be answered with more than "look it up or figure it out yourself" as my answer.<br>
<br> If any of you would appreciate my help, feel free to let me know at any time and I'll do what I can.<br><br>- Len W. Brown<br> <a href="mailto:lenwbrown@gmail.com" target="_blank">lenwbrown@gmail.com</a><div>
<div></div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 6:23 AM, Colin B. Withers <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:Colin.Withers@eumetsat.int" target="_blank">Colin.Withers@eumetsat.int</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;">
Hi guys,<br>
<br>
I have decided to leave the Opensim project. You will probably not even notice if I leave, as not being a programmer my only inputs were the writing of the step-by-step tutorials ( <a href="http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/</a> ), the drafts of the OpenSim User Manual on the Forge, and helping out in the IRC channels, for newcomers.<br>
<br>
You may find my reasons for leaving Opensim interesting though (and please do not construe any of my reasons as an attack on anyone).<br>
<br>
1. The Platform<br>
I raised this several times in the past in IRC, and made posts on my blog about the product lifecycle of the platform ( <a href="http://rock-vacirca.blogspot.com/2009/02/direction-of-virtual-worlds.html" target="_blank">http://rock-vacirca.blogspot.com/2009/02/direction-of-virtual-worlds.html</a> ). I believe that the platforms underpinning both Second Life and Opensim are quite long in the tooth now, and I questioned how much product lifecycle there was left, particularly given that Opensim is now nearing 3 years of development, is still in Alpha, and if the current release of 0.6.7 is any indicator, then still only around two thirds into the development cycle. With the (inevitable) coming of much superior platforms, such as Blue Mars and (as a virtual world); Unity, for browser-based Virtual Wolrds; and now UDK (for creating sandboxes, standalones, and open grids), then I fear that Opensim has missed the boat as far as the remaining lifecycle of the platform is concerned. When you show people what is possible with these engines (for example this avatar editor for the forthcom<br>
ing APB (using the Unreal Engine): <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icR3LtEMvZI" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=icR3LtEMvZI</a> or this city: <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmLzNbPXMDg" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hmLzNbPXMDg</a> (using the CryEngine), then neither SL not Opensim stands comparison.<br>
<br>
2. Lack of Support for Currency in Opensim<br>
I felt the impact of this when I first made the switch from SL to Opensim. I had a thriving RP sim in SL (over 50 people, mainly female) and they all agreed to follow me over to my Opensim and the OSGrid. However, within a month they had all left, citing the same reason, the lack of places to shop, to buy the quality stuff they wanted (skins, hair, clothes etc), as a quality appearance, and the fun of shopping is what all the females placed high on their requirements from a Virtual World. They drifted back to Second Life, and the guys followed them. I have always believed that the lack of support for currency in the core was a mistake, but that is just my opinion.<br>
<br>
3. Marketing<br>
I have also raised this issue several times, and blogged about it. It is far from clear just who an eventually released Opensim is actually aimed at. I think that any company that is interested in a firewalled corporate solution to collaboration and prototyping will already be looking at the Enterprise solution that is currently available from Second Life; that any indie group that is thinking of running a themed grid will need an economy to stay viable; and any individual who is looking for a private sandbox solution for their SL work will need full compatibility (which is not the case with the OS version of LSL diverging from the SL LSL). So, just who is the platform aimed at? I was also very disappointed in the view of one of the core devs who said that 'marketing is a null concept for us'.<br>
<br>
I am currently designing and creating cities for Blue Mars, and involved in a team for proving the UDK as a platform for the design and creation of Virtual Worlds (as opposed to purely games), and with so much documentation available for these mature engines (particularly for the UDK, Blue Mars lags behind somewhat in that department, but have hired extra staff to put that right), I am achieving the productivity I want, building the worlds that I want, with stable crash-free platforms.<br>
<br>
However, I do wish the Opensim team the very best in their endeavours, and I sincerely hope their goals are eventually achieved.<br>
<br>
If anyone would like to take over the Opensim Tutorials pages at <a href="http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://chapter-and-metaverse.blogspot.com/</a> and <a href="http://chapter-and-metaverse2.blogspot.com/" target="_blank">http://chapter-and-metaverse2.blogspot.com/</a> (they will need some updating following several changes) then I am more than willing to pass the posts over, and of course the Opensim User Manual is there in the Forge for anyone to develop further.<br>
<br>
Best Regards and Good Luck<br>
<br>
Rock<br>
<br>
<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" target="_blank">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
</blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de" target="_blank">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>
</div></div><br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de">Opensim-dev@lists.berlios.de</a><br>
<a href="https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" target="_blank">https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br>