[Opensim-users] TechCrunch Article

Fri Feb 17 15:58:01 UTC 2012

Having been using LSL since 2005, I can say that this argument about
'backward' compatibility holding things has bee used often, even then. So
it is often used to shift blame.
I personally believe that the real issue is that as new requirements emerge
while working within this specific domain, we hit totally new problems that
are not faced by the other list of languages often mentioned as being
better than LSL. LSL does have many problems, especially trivial and
annoying ones, even at the level of syntax which makes coding confusing ...
LSL's front end could be preserved so that content does not break, the back
end could be optimized etc... / re implemented.
Sometimes, visiting places showcased by Linden Lab as recent as yesterday,
also illustrates how we are still far for a really pleasant experience in
SL.
It appears to me that SL allows a lot more than can be done at the level of
granularity of interactions, and building of content. It feels like VRML
... in the last stages before nobody talked about it .. I can only hope
that there are better engineers at LL working secretly on the problems we
all concerned about on the exterior. Which is pretty unlikely, but I hope
this is case.

On Fri, Feb 17, 2012 at 2:56 AM, Wade Schuette <wade.schuette at gmail.com>wrote:

>  I imagine that, aside from coding language,  the rest of the architecture
> and database design are equally adhoc, were great at the time as one of
> those "temporary solutions" that LL outgrew rapidly.   Are they running
> MySQL under the covers?
>
> The asset server has clearly bogged down and probably the tables are
> incredibly fragmented but I don't think they have the ability to defrag
> them, or recognize the problem for what it is.   Whatever it is certainly
> didn't scale well or age well, and clearly has no transaction control so
> things get lost routinely.
>
> A monolithic non-distributed design,  implemented on a cloud of servers,
> is an astoundingly poor use of resources.  The whole busy/idle problem is
> as well, where 100 avatars can work fine one per sim, but if they all come
> together that one cpu stops while 99 cpu's are idle.       Easily 95% of
> the computing power of the server farm is wasted.
>
> The "silos with messaging" approach to growth also results in the total
> chaos when anyone or anything simply attempts to move from one sim across a
> boundary to the next sim.
>
> Still,  all of the above problems could be fixed and redesigned away
> without having to break anything at the user's level.
>
> I think their largest constraint on growth IS somewhat more deeply
> embedded in code, which is their data structures for "objects" that have
> only a single level of linking.     Once you link those "wheels" to the
> "car" there are no "wheel" objects any more, and God help you if you want
> to change the tires.
>
> Also the way the code is implemented discourages building with distributed
> intelligence among the parts, and encourages monolithic scripts that run
> everything from the root prim.   More than once I've tried to do a clean
> distributed intelligence object and given up and gone back to central
> scripts.
>
> Overall, I suspect that, as always, "the work of the hands reflects the
> state of the heart."   Their management style involves silos of teams that
> may message each other but don't cross boundaries well,  with massive
> central control that limits creativity and makes changes have to be
> prohibitively huge and staged instead of incremental and continuous.
>
> As near as I can tell the whole architecture is on "milking status" with
> effective freeze on putting money into fixing things such as the
> Marketplace, which is clearly in a different silo than the developers.
>
> It's like a piston-driven internal combustion engine -- which is way
> better than the horse drawn carts before it, but now that the market has
> been developed, is seen to have no change of being "tweaked" to match the
> new turbine-engined designs of next year with true distributed intelligence
> and scalable growth without performance disaster.
>
> In fact, if a single thing defines their limits, it's an architecture
> where, the more servers are added to the mix, the HARDER it becomes to
> operate at any kind of reasonable speed or accuracy.  Their help desk is
> massively overwhelmed already and must pray for the number of users to stop
> growing.    One can imagine an architecture with the opposite property,
> where every new user and server chips in a little more capacity and
> actually increases performance and ability to do self-healing quality
> control.
>
> Wade
>
>
>
> On 2/17/12 1:18 AM, Toni Alatalo wrote:
>
>  On Feb 17, 2012, at 9:00 AM, Drew Hart wrote:
>
> money. The whole world is built on *old, inefficient code*, and if Linden
> tries to update it those virtual objects can break, triggering massive
> backlash from buyers and sellers." (Emphasis mine)
> I am just curious - is this statement true?  Is it true of Open Sim?  I
> feel like it's not true, but I am curious for comment.  And are we
> sacrificing quality to ensure backwards compatibility?  I guess this is a
> philosophy
>
>
>  I'd dare to say: yes. With some reservations.
>
>  Rationale: for example LSL itself, at least the current implementations
> of it, are AFAIK relatively inefficient. Not to mention not the greatest
> nor best known language around, with third party libraries etc. The LLUDP
> protocol is another problem point, but I'll focus on the scripting here as
> that's what your post seemed to refer to.
>
>  If you compare LSL with a completely from the scratch approach, where
> you would drop all concerns for backwards compatibility, you could use
> either Javascript and the powerful optimized V8 engine for it (used in
> Chrome and in many places that embed js now) or for example Lua which has
> gotten really popular in games, and is fast and light.
>
>  The reservations: I'm sure both SL and Opensim backends have done good
> things to optimize things e.g. in the script engines. Linden has been
> working on their viewer too etc. Usually it is possible to optimize, clean
> up implementations etc. while still keeping backwards compatibility. I
> don't mean to belittle that work nor say that it would be impossible. There
> might be some weird things with LSL that prevent some cleanup /
> optimization for backwards compatibility reasons but I'd guess those points
> are rare.
>
>  Anyhow my bet is that LSL will never beat V8, with the huge Google
> effort, nor Lua with the nice clean design that also allows great speed
> (with LuaJIT2) , in quality -- considering both the niceness of the langs
> and the efficiency of execution.
>
>  C# scripting for SL seemed promising in Babbage's demo and that would be
> plenty nice and fast, though. And with Opensim you get that efficiency by
> writing region modules.
>
>  In realXtend with the Tundra SDK we've been now pursuing the approach
> where dropped most our the legacy (slviewer and opensim) alltogether,
> compatibility as well. So there at least you have something to compare
> with: a nice clean efficient system, but with no SL compatibility. If
> someone is interested we can do benchmarks, just tell what to test & we'll
> report :) We currently use JS for apps (not V8 now though but there's a
> branch of qtscript with which we can get that) and may test Lua too. My
> wish is that we are still a humble part of the opensim community, even
> though use different technologies -- alternative tools that suite different
> purposes are good to have around.
>
>  And the fact that all you out there in the big world use Opensim happily
> and can't e.g. switch to Tundra is a perfect example why backwards
> compatibility is a big deal :) We here just have often cases where legacy
> doesn't matter, some new game or customer project where need to make a
> custom app, perhaps with no SL like functionality at all, so in those cases
> it's not a prob and we can pursue this route.
>
>  Drew
>
>
>  2cently yours,
> ~Toni
>
>  http://techcrunch.com/2012/02/16/littletextpeople/
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing listOpensim-users at lists.berlios.dehttps://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> Opensim-users at lists.berlios.de
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>

-- 
'Consider how the lilies grow. They do not labor or spin.'
*Rameshsharma Ramloll* PhD, *Research Associate Professor*, Idaho State
University, Pocatello, ID 83209 Tel: 208-282-5333
Blog <http://deepsemaphore.posterous.com/>,
LinkedIn<http://www.linkedin.com/in/rameshramloll>
, Play2Train <http://www.play2train.org>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://opensimulator.org/pipermail/opensim-users/attachments/20120217/cb6ae2d7/attachment.html>