<div dir="ltr">Doug I participated in MOSES grid as well and my experience there was terrible, far worse performance than i experienced in any other grid, I took part in the FCVW build and planning and experienced a multitude of problems on MOSES platform that just do not exist in the core opensimulator software. And this is what I mean by chasing ghosts, MOSES is fixing bugs in MOSES for MOSES that just do not exist in the core software. You can feel however you want and if you feel embarrassed then go work on MOSES software, no one is stopping you. I do agree though that this whole thing is quite a huge embarrassment for the project. It still does not change the fact that to date no improvements have come from this change and all its done is cause arguments, the reason their code was not accepted is because it was not suitable for core, end of story. They wanted us to accept patches unconditionally and sorry, that is not going to happen.<br></div><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 5:48 PM, dz <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dz@bitzend.net" target="_blank">dz@bitzend.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div class="gmail_extra"><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Tue, Nov 10, 2015 at 9:06 AM, Michael Emory Cerquoni <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:nebadon2025@gmail.com" target="_blank">nebadon2025@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">..... Also if that was the intended goal why was this not coordinated prior to the break, to just go ahead break something and then call it progress while leaving stuff broken and then say oh someone else should fix that is quite unprofessional in any setting. We need to resolve this problem of viewer development or quite honestly this whole thing is dead in its tracks, without a constantly improving viewer OpenSim is looking more and more like a dead end. That said its never to late to revive things and start wallking the path to improvement, but as a group we need to stop focusing on the wrong things. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>HUH??? Coordinated??? An independent group of developers who WANT OpenSim to work used the appropriate forum to ask everyone about the cause, and asked for suggestions on how to correct the problem... A patch was generated and went through 3 months of iterations and VERY open discussion.. The whole point of that was to notify the people who participate and garner feedback from anyone/everyone in the community. The FACT is there was general agreement among most of CORE and the other participants that THIS WAS a step forward. I cant find anywhere in any of these early discussions where anyone expressed the unprofessional attitude you assert. </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr">What i see is people chasing ghosts of problems that are not the real core problems of what this project has and needs, with little to zero improvements as a result. Can anyone name a single improvement that has come from changing the stats? Where are the patches, where are the scientific write ups showing that this was a success, so far to me this whole thing with stats seems like a big distraction that is not only not beneficial so far, its causing strife between the developers. </div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>Chasing Ghosts?? really, you don't want to go there AT ALL... WHERE is the road map of the REAL CORE PROBLEMS??? How many times have people stood and said I'm ready, willing, and able to help, Please tell me what I should focus on? If you want to look for a failure of communication I suggest you start there before you start blaming the folks who have followed the very public lead of core and picked a problem that is important to them! </div><div><br></div><div>Where are the papers?? The consensus of the participants in the discussion was that the made up numbers were impacting the credibility of those who were already publishing. It is also extremely misleading to categorize MOSES as the only group interested in conducting these performance measurement/improvement tests and publishing results... Maybe you should review some of Christas' publications,, or the serious gaming PhD thesis whose author bothered to speak up in favor, Or maybe you just forget the years of Intel projects??? If you actually READ the communications from MOSES you would understand that they could NOT publish results of all the previously testing knowing that the results were inaccurate. </div><div><br></div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"> Personally I don't have the solutions, my time is very limited anymore and I cant spend the time I have in the past testing things and coordinating people like I have, we need more people to step up and do the right thing without making people feel like its being shoved down their throats.<br><br></div></blockquote></div><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">AMEN! We do need people to step up... and a bunch of us did. We were publicly ridiculed ( and that ridicule continues. ) We jumped through ALL the hoops, we communicated with everyone we were told needed to be involved, MOSES reworked, and resubmitted patches. They spent the time to attempt to communicate WHY this was an important step forward. We welcomed the discussion.. and honestly until the other day It seemed like it was a success... All of a sudden, In the space of 3 days, we are informed that some mysterious user has whispered their annoyance about an OBSOLETE feature in one of the viewers , and because of this "comment" our efforts would be ignored in favor of a solution proposed and implemented in the "backroom". Who is shoving what down whose throat?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">The community has spoken on the issue of incorrect performance measurement figures being reported and agreed it IS a step forward. The fact is, Melanie could have added her solution to the code base on her grid in minutes and could have avoided this discussion altogether. There is NO REASON why her fix needed to be included in core. Her assertion that "someone else can recode the stats to use a new method of reporting " is arrogant and ignores the fact that it is the most complex solution to implement... (sound familiar to the unprofessional attitude you attributed elsewhere??) She has demanded that the PHYSICS FPS reporting field already provided in the viewer be populated with FALSE data and seems to think it is reasonable that MOSES repeat the tortuous affair to re-code ANOTHER solution and go through the process of convincing her it is technically correct. Please just ask yourself.... How inclusive is that?? Why would anyone who saw any of this step forward and volunteer to do what members of core have been pushing folks to do since 2009?</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">THAT, pure and simple, is the reason we cannot get people interested in continuing to work with the project... That is not to say that the work won't continue ON the project, it will just continue to be done in splintered efforts by people who are basically fed up with dealing with this disregard for the people who make the effort to participate in this forum. </div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Just so I am clear... I AM NOT a member of the MOSES development group.. but I am a supporter of their efforts.. Outside of the time I spent with Intel on the Science Sim grid, they are the most dedicated, competent, and forward looking of the development groups interested in OpenSim I have had the pleasure to work with. In my opinion,, if core cant extend a hand and figure out a way to work with this group, they are carving a BIG R.I.P. on the tombstone of OpenSim as we know it... MOSES will build a simulator that dramatically improves the physics capabilities and performance, They are likely to be the first to implement an HTML based viewer, and (If we are lucky) they will implement a scheme of distributed simulator services that will integrate with the future of cloud based apps. I am proud to be allowed to participate in their efforts, and , at the moment totally embarrassed by how this project has reacted to them.</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div><div class="gmail_extra">Doug Osborn</div><div class="gmail_extra"><br></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
Opensim-dev mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org">Opensim-dev@opensimulator.org</a><br>
<a href="http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev" rel="noreferrer" target="_blank">http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev</a><br>
<br></blockquote></div><br><br clear="all"><br>-- <br><div class="gmail_signature">Michael Emory Cerquoni</div>
</div>