Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
12 messages Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ai Austin-2
As an educator and researcher interested in simulation and training
and researching and using distributed collaboration, I am interested
in using virtual worlds to support teaching, training, a range of
research projects and for meeting and gathering spaces for meetings
and events. Mixed reality setups linked to events in real life but
involving a distributed international audience in particular interest
me. I also see the value of virtual worlds as a basis for work and
social interactions.

Like others have mentioned the core compatibility with Second Life
has been a big plus feature for my interests and let us share assets
between our University Second Life areas and OpenSim based
alternative.  We have been able to preserve earlier Second Life
builds for educational simulations and exhibits on low cost self
hosted regions, sometimes mounted on demand, when the cost of the
space for a permanently available Second Life a facility could not be
justified after projects finished, for example.

OpenSimulator has been and is a very useful basis for this, and there
is currently really good compatibility to core Second life
features.  But due to wonderful open source orientated developers and
contributors to OenSimulator we also have some capabilities that
exceed those available in Second Life...; such as the far superior
NPC capabilities which open up all sorts of opportunities.

The capability to self host and decide on what version is used or
when updates are done (or not) is a really important feature for
those running stable and productive applications of
OpenSim.  Doug/MOSES I know once saw Second Life Enterprise (the self
hosted packaged server version of SL) as a route to provide the kind
of facility to the US government and Army training uses.  OpenSim
provides a basis for this if it can keep moving forward.

Like Cinder, I am encouraged by the close and helpful collaboration
now between some of the third party viewer developers and the
facility to add in OpenSim specific enhancements or variations to
Second Life.  That is useful.  The LGPL nature of the core viewer
code encourages any use and is also positive.  There is no longer any
need to remain constrained by what is in Second Life , though like
Dahlia, I believe most of our community, myself included, really
values the close compatibility between SL and OpenSim.

Like MisterBlue I hope the core plus modules approach that OpenSim
tries to adopt can be used to advantage to allow all sorts of
capabilities, alternatives physics engines, experimental features,
plugins and addins without bloating the core.  And especially not
making the base requirements and necessary underlying modules be more
complicated than necessary.

In terms of a community driven road map, a core plus modules approach
could help. It would be nice to have discussions where needed on
changes to the core that are necessarily to support features that
groups and developers feel are necessary to add on their
offerings.  And we should definitely encourage any such group to try
to addin or addon their developments and contribute them back to the
community (as many valuable contributors do) rather than to have to
branch off on their own.  One problem we have is that modules are
scattered about on separate web sites or GIT areas, so we don't have
a single place to go to select and get what is needed.  Its not a
problem for those with an existing system they are just adding parts
to, as they know where to go to get updates to all parts.  But its a
real bug headache for someone creating a new fully features grid
where some core elements do not have an initial core implemented default.

As others have said though, this is a mixed community of those who
give their code developments and testing feedback when they can and
those with more invented in terms of effort and dependency on the
facilities.  Its not going away even if developments slow down or
speed up every now and then as key people move on.  We don't want to
scare anyone, but we also want a community that feels everyone has a
voice.  The mailing lists opensim-dev and opensim-users really are
useful and have some experience and very helpful people on them who
try their best to help all - whether new to OenSim or experienced.

Owards and upwards, Ai

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Ai Austin-2
At 03:00 14/08/2015, Mister Blue <[hidden email]> rote:
>I have my own ideas about a next generation, scalable, wonderful
>virtual wrld simulation system but that is not for here.

Why not :-)
But with a new subject line! I would be very interested to hear your
thoughts in some appropriate forum.  A blog page?

Here were some of my thoughts  No. 1 there to me is a key thing, but
I think LL may be going for a whole lot of non-connected
"experiences" like the "instance" spaces in MMORPGs.
http://blog.inf.ed.ac.uk/atate/2014/08/04/wishlist-for-next-gen-virtual-world/

>For OpenSimulator, I'd lke to see it made more modular and to add
>the events, APIs, and astractions needed to extend it in all the
>ways the different user groups need.

Here here.


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

R.Gunther
Looked at the blog page, most is right.
But missing one important thing i cannot post there. and is annoying
wrong in S:/OS

Scaled building and first person look and optional 3rd person.
The camera position in SL/OS is very annoying. yes you can change it.
but the whole world is not build on that. So not working very good.

On 2015-08-14 12:02, Ai Austin wrote:

> At 03:00 14/08/2015, Mister Blue <[hidden email]> rote:
>> I have my own ideas about a next generation, scalable, wonderful
>> virtual wrld simulation system but that is not for here.
>
> Why not :-)
> But with a new subject line! I would be very interested to hear your
> thoughts in some appropriate forum.  A blog page?
>
> Here were some of my thoughts  No. 1 there to me is a key thing, but I
> think LL may be going for a whole lot of non-connected "experiences"
> like the "instance" spaces in MMORPGs.
> http://blog.inf.ed.ac.uk/atate/2014/08/04/wishlist-for-next-gen-virtual-world/ 
>
>
>> For OpenSimulator, I'd lke to see it made more modular and to add the
>> events, APIs, and astractions needed to extend it in all the ways the
>> different user groups need.
>
> Here here.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-dev mailing list
> [hidden email]
> http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
>


---
This email has been checked for viruses by Avast antivirus software.
https://www.avast.com/antivirus

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

thai low (endivatomic.eu)
I'm new to this board and relative new on OS too, so i don't know if i'm
allowed
to explain my point of view here. If i'm not please forgive me and trash
this mail.

I spent last year and half working by myself in different direction
(translating code
and playing with web browser as viewer), waiting the days i would have
something
concrete to show before talk with somebody, but reading this board i
decided myself
to say some words too.

In first instance i agree/disagree with Dahlia (3.66??). I agree <<user
community
wants and expects this compatibility above all else>>, but they are
users (and me too!),
it mean we like to use software in the way we are use to, not that we
care about how
this goal it's reached (and this is true for OS as for any software).
I don't think <<we are probably nearing crossroads>>, i think we are in
delay and if we
don't make something "energic" all the job made to OS will be slowly
lost, it will remain
a nice game or a <<nice piece of software>> until a new platform will born.

I agree with Doug: an organization it's a need, to prioritize goals in a
long term view,
able to collect requests and ideas and make a filter about what could
came first and what
later. I think Terry was really active in this direction when he created
Opensimunited.

Back in concrete, in Doug's style, i'll throw what the goals i would
like to follow:

1) Complete rewrite of Robust in different language (maybe php like
Simiam) to separate
    "management" from "operativity", powering the development of 3rd
party web based
    interfaces. All with <<Clear and up-to-date API documentation>>.

2) slow translation of simulator into c++ for better performance and
integration with
    other engines (i must tell that i'm not a c++ coder, i'm not talking
about this for
    a kind of mania).

3) Start definitions of a client development, a sort of proxy to install
on single clients
    making bridge between Web Browsers and simulators OR set the basis
for a new viewer.
    I've nothing to say against actual viewers, they are wonderful but
they must follow SL
    directive in first. Without having a new base code for a new viewer
it would be
    impossible to get to point 5.

4) Clear and up-to-date API documentation.
    Without this, an open software can't be called "open". Like Cinder,
i felt exactly the
    same frustration losing more time in trying to understand how to
dialogue with OS
    then writing code i wanted.

5) Do not forget compatibility with.... but forget SL. This is
OpenSimulator not a
    brand of Lindens Labs.

This are just 5 points as pure example, i don't go on just because i
think i bored all
of you enough.

All this to say that, if a new organization will born, well structured
and strongly motivated,
i would be really happy to give my contribution in term of code lines.
To don't make names... Terry, why don't you organize something in this
direction?
... it could also be a fork at beginning, to have a check if it will
work and go on with its
legs without disturb the main Opensimulator project.

Marco Montrasio
inworld: thai low



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

M.E. Verhagen
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Shaun T. Erickson
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All
these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a
road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles
the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line,
financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and
the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want
to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a
research project, for some, and the core of something that others make
money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to
take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals
forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly
do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my
assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My
comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six
years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have
produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might
wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't
work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know
I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up
with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they
should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean
they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1)
write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that
changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core
framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have
free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay
someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other
like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a
modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste

On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:

> In 5 years time I see ...
>  opensim having it's own viewers
> There will be no compatibility left with SL
> It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
> The core will be relative bug free
> There will be a decent road map
> Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
> There will be many forks of opensim.
> There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
> Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
> landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Diva Canto
On 8/16/2015 5:39 PM, Shaun T. Erickson wrote:
> 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that
> changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core
> framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have
> free reign to do whatever you want

We also like to know when the APIs aren't working for 3rd party
developers and need rethinking. We've done a lot of those adjustments
for 3rd party functionality like DSG, my own Diva addons, and many
proprietary addons by core devs. The more the interfaces are challenged
by new uses, the better/more general they tend to get.


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

M.E. Verhagen
In reply to this post by Shaun T. Erickson
Well the compatibility is in these days just that there are still viewers having the ability to login into opensims as well as in SL. You cannot teleport from opensim to SL, send im's, share inventory or something else. As I see it the compatibly with SL is just wishful thinking of an opensource opensim wanting to be compatible with a more and more closed source SL. 
So that implicit means the core developers will have to do diverge and lay out the things they want to develop. They will longer be able to say let's reverse engineer that cool new features LL has done. That will lead to a roadmap ... I hope.

An yes it is just a prediction of how I think opensim will look in 5 years time. For at least one thing is sure, opensim will still be around in 5 years time :)

2015-08-17 2:39 GMT+02:00 Shaun T. Erickson <[hidden email]>:
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line, financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a research project, for some, and the core of something that others make money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste


On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Diva Canto
Given the enormous investment made in SL viewers, as well as in the server-side OpenSimulator plugins that support them, the default application behavior of the OpenSimulator framework is going to be SL-ish in the foreseeable future. There will hopefully be several improvements to the SL viewers made by the viewer developers with collaboration from us, but these will still be SL viewers. Maybe we can evolve them beyond recognition, but they will still be SL viewers.

Going beyond the default SL-ish application, someone needs to develop 3d clients that are completely different. The development of 3d clients, even SL viewers, is not part of the OpenSimulator project itself; it may come from teams that include some of the OpenSimulator core developers, but those are different teams and different projects. It's 3rd-party development, as far as the framework is concerned. (just like Diva Wifi is 3rd party development, even though I'm a core developer)

The most the OpenSimulator framework can, and will, do is to facilitate sharing of those alternative 3d applications. So if you're developing a Web client for OpenSimulator, the necessary server-side modules that you will certainly need to develop should be easily installable in binary form by other people running OpenSimulator. This can be made on your side so that people need to pay you, if that's what it takes to get you motivated. Ask me about it in the IRC if you want to know more about this, but here's the gist of it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Developing_OpenSim_Addins

I have been quietly experimenting with paid licenses for these OpenSimulator addons; I don't plan to get rich with this, but I'm exploring the territory from a *technical* point of view, so that others can eventually make money with their own ideas for what virtual worlds should look like.

It is very unlikely that the OpenSimulator project will absorb those modules either as dlls or as part of the source code (again, it's a framework, it should be as small as possible), but we certainly encourage their development by providing a mechanism that connects providers and consumers, for both paid and free modules, open source or not.

On 8/17/2015 2:51 AM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
Well the compatibility is in these days just that there are still viewers having the ability to login into opensims as well as in SL. You cannot teleport from opensim to SL, send im's, share inventory or something else. As I see it the compatibly with SL is just wishful thinking of an opensource opensim wanting to be compatible with a more and more closed source SL. 
So that implicit means the core developers will have to do diverge and lay out the things they want to develop. They will longer be able to say let's reverse engineer that cool new features LL has done. That will lead to a roadmap ... I hope.

An yes it is just a prediction of how I think opensim will look in 5 years time. For at least one thing is sure, opensim will still be around in 5 years time :)

2015-08-17 2:39 GMT+02:00 Shaun T. Erickson <[hidden email]>:
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line, financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a research project, for some, and the core of something that others make money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste


On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Drew Hart
Hello, all.  I have been following this email thread for a long, long, long time.  I am a psychologist, not a developer, though my day job is managing technology for a law firm - go figure that one out.  Anyway, who is your audience.  I write documentation for lawyers on how to use Word, etc., and would love to help write documentation but I lack developer knowledge to do that.  If someone has a solution, perhaps a mentor or go-to person for questions, I am more than happy to dedicate a lot of time to documentation.  But back to my original point.  Who are you building this for?  It seems to me that much of the discussion implies that only developers will be able to use Open Simulator.  Novices, like me, won't.  Earlier a house analogy was used.  Well, I understand that Open Simulator is only meant to be the frame, but without default extras, without Diva Distros, etc., why would any non-developer get involved?  I can't use Open Simulator as it is too advanced for me.  But yet I am a customer of the service, if you will.  Anyway, just my thoughts.  This is part of the basics. Define your audience.  Define your workers, contributors.  Define your future goals based on those things...etc.  Thanks,

Drew

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Diva Canto <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given the enormous investment made in SL viewers, as well as in the server-side OpenSimulator plugins that support them, the default application behavior of the OpenSimulator framework is going to be SL-ish in the foreseeable future. There will hopefully be several improvements to the SL viewers made by the viewer developers with collaboration from us, but these will still be SL viewers. Maybe we can evolve them beyond recognition, but they will still be SL viewers.

Going beyond the default SL-ish application, someone needs to develop 3d clients that are completely different. The development of 3d clients, even SL viewers, is not part of the OpenSimulator project itself; it may come from teams that include some of the OpenSimulator core developers, but those are different teams and different projects. It's 3rd-party development, as far as the framework is concerned. (just like Diva Wifi is 3rd party development, even though I'm a core developer)

The most the OpenSimulator framework can, and will, do is to facilitate sharing of those alternative 3d applications. So if you're developing a Web client for OpenSimulator, the necessary server-side modules that you will certainly need to develop should be easily installable in binary form by other people running OpenSimulator. This can be made on your side so that people need to pay you, if that's what it takes to get you motivated. Ask me about it in the IRC if you want to know more about this, but here's the gist of it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Developing_OpenSim_Addins

I have been quietly experimenting with paid licenses for these OpenSimulator addons; I don't plan to get rich with this, but I'm exploring the territory from a *technical* point of view, so that others can eventually make money with their own ideas for what virtual worlds should look like.

It is very unlikely that the OpenSimulator project will absorb those modules either as dlls or as part of the source code (again, it's a framework, it should be as small as possible), but we certainly encourage their development by providing a mechanism that connects providers and consumers, for both paid and free modules, open source or not.

On 8/17/2015 2:51 AM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
Well the compatibility is in these days just that there are still viewers having the ability to login into opensims as well as in SL. You cannot teleport from opensim to SL, send im's, share inventory or something else. As I see it the compatibly with SL is just wishful thinking of an opensource opensim wanting to be compatible with a more and more closed source SL. 
So that implicit means the core developers will have to do diverge and lay out the things they want to develop. They will longer be able to say let's reverse engineer that cool new features LL has done. That will lead to a roadmap ... I hope.

An yes it is just a prediction of how I think opensim will look in 5 years time. For at least one thing is sure, opensim will still be around in 5 years time :)

2015-08-17 2:39 GMT+02:00 Shaun T. Erickson <[hidden email]>:
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line, financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a research project, for some, and the core of something that others make money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste


On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Dahlia Trimble
I'll take a stab at this.

This mailing list is targeted primarily at developers (hence the name). I believe the target "customer" if you will is... developers and system administrators. There are developers who also provide end-user solutions but these solutions are generally not part of the OpenSimulator project. Such end-user solutions could be public or private grids or single-user solutions such as Sim on a Stick. For the most part, however, the collaborative activities of developers under the OpenSimulator umbrella are geared towards developing a common framework and the SL emulation application of this framework.

Anyone is free to offer suggestions and indeed these suggestions should be encouraged. On some occasions activity related to some suggestions can become disruptive and unproductive but for the most part it's ok. Offering suggestions is by no means any guarantee that they will be developed, in fact most are likely ignored. On some occasions suggestions are deemed of sufficient value to inspire development but this is the exception, not the norm. The best way to get one's suggestions implemented is to either implement them using one's own resources or pay a developer to do it.

As for documentation, help here is most welcome! :) Probably the best way would be to become a user and/or developer and set up a editing account on our wiki. Having a presence on our primafy IRC channels (irc.freenode.net  #opensim and #opensim-dev) is a good way to get questions answered for developing expertise or creating documentation.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Drew Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello, all.  I have been following this email thread for a long, long, long time.  I am a psychologist, not a developer, though my day job is managing technology for a law firm - go figure that one out.  Anyway, who is your audience.  I write documentation for lawyers on how to use Word, etc., and would love to help write documentation but I lack developer knowledge to do that.  If someone has a solution, perhaps a mentor or go-to person for questions, I am more than happy to dedicate a lot of time to documentation.  But back to my original point.  Who are you building this for?  It seems to me that much of the discussion implies that only developers will be able to use Open Simulator.  Novices, like me, won't.  Earlier a house analogy was used.  Well, I understand that Open Simulator is only meant to be the frame, but without default extras, without Diva Distros, etc., why would any non-developer get involved?  I can't use Open Simulator as it is too advanced for me.  But yet I am a customer of the service, if you will.  Anyway, just my thoughts.  This is part of the basics. Define your audience.  Define your workers, contributors.  Define your future goals based on those things...etc.  Thanks,

Drew

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Diva Canto <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given the enormous investment made in SL viewers, as well as in the server-side OpenSimulator plugins that support them, the default application behavior of the OpenSimulator framework is going to be SL-ish in the foreseeable future. There will hopefully be several improvements to the SL viewers made by the viewer developers with collaboration from us, but these will still be SL viewers. Maybe we can evolve them beyond recognition, but they will still be SL viewers.

Going beyond the default SL-ish application, someone needs to develop 3d clients that are completely different. The development of 3d clients, even SL viewers, is not part of the OpenSimulator project itself; it may come from teams that include some of the OpenSimulator core developers, but those are different teams and different projects. It's 3rd-party development, as far as the framework is concerned. (just like Diva Wifi is 3rd party development, even though I'm a core developer)

The most the OpenSimulator framework can, and will, do is to facilitate sharing of those alternative 3d applications. So if you're developing a Web client for OpenSimulator, the necessary server-side modules that you will certainly need to develop should be easily installable in binary form by other people running OpenSimulator. This can be made on your side so that people need to pay you, if that's what it takes to get you motivated. Ask me about it in the IRC if you want to know more about this, but here's the gist of it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Developing_OpenSim_Addins

I have been quietly experimenting with paid licenses for these OpenSimulator addons; I don't plan to get rich with this, but I'm exploring the territory from a *technical* point of view, so that others can eventually make money with their own ideas for what virtual worlds should look like.

It is very unlikely that the OpenSimulator project will absorb those modules either as dlls or as part of the source code (again, it's a framework, it should be as small as possible), but we certainly encourage their development by providing a mechanism that connects providers and consumers, for both paid and free modules, open source or not.

On 8/17/2015 2:51 AM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
Well the compatibility is in these days just that there are still viewers having the ability to login into opensims as well as in SL. You cannot teleport from opensim to SL, send im's, share inventory or something else. As I see it the compatibly with SL is just wishful thinking of an opensource opensim wanting to be compatible with a more and more closed source SL. 
So that implicit means the core developers will have to do diverge and lay out the things they want to develop. They will longer be able to say let's reverse engineer that cool new features LL has done. That will lead to a roadmap ... I hope.

An yes it is just a prediction of how I think opensim will look in 5 years time. For at least one thing is sure, opensim will still be around in 5 years time :)

2015-08-17 2:39 GMT+02:00 Shaun T. Erickson <[hidden email]>:
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line, financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a research project, for some, and the core of something that others make money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste


On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|  
Report Content as Inappropriate

Re: The Future of Open Simulator(?) (UNCLASSIFIED)

Michael Emory Cerquoni
One good analogy for OpenSimulator is comparing it to Apache Web Server.   There are 10s of 1000's of web masters who do not have the foggiest idea what Apache Web Server is, and If OpenSimulator is Apache, then Second Life (or Second Life Style) Simulators are WordPress.  While there are 10's if not 100's of 1000's of people who manage WordPress websites, many of them have no idea what Apache web server is or how to set it up. The Goal of OpenSimulator is to go beyond just a single style of simulator (IE Second Life) and allow for people to mix and match different modules to suit their own needs, very much Like WordPress or other CMS style websites that run inside of an Apache Web Server.  I Would say the target audience for OpenSimulator developers is people looking to build applications on top of that architecture, much like a fresh wordpress installation when you initially set it up, the website does absolutely nothing until you choose how you want to configure it, make it look and how your users will interact with that end product. 

There are many layers to making OpenSimulator work, most everyone I talk to has no problem downloading and setting up the OpenSimulator software and understanding the configuration files, where most people fumble is with the networking side of things.  OpenSimulator is very complex software and the average user of OpenSimulator will just simply not have the skills required to setup and use a Second Life style simulator properly at this point without a ton of hand holding, while there are certainly things we can do to make OpenSimulator easier to use, there are ultimately going to be things we can not make easy enough for everyone to just understand. 

My own personal opinion is that the target audience for OpenSimulator is going to be Server Admin/Resellers / Software Developers / Hard Core Tinkerers for the foreseeable future, and those who are maintaining packages like Divas Distro or OSgrid that makes running OpenSimulator out of the box for the average person much easier will maintain varying audiences for their particular packages or grids.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 4:16 PM, Dahlia Trimble <[hidden email]> wrote:
I'll take a stab at this.

This mailing list is targeted primarily at developers (hence the name). I believe the target "customer" if you will is... developers and system administrators. There are developers who also provide end-user solutions but these solutions are generally not part of the OpenSimulator project. Such end-user solutions could be public or private grids or single-user solutions such as Sim on a Stick. For the most part, however, the collaborative activities of developers under the OpenSimulator umbrella are geared towards developing a common framework and the SL emulation application of this framework.

Anyone is free to offer suggestions and indeed these suggestions should be encouraged. On some occasions activity related to some suggestions can become disruptive and unproductive but for the most part it's ok. Offering suggestions is by no means any guarantee that they will be developed, in fact most are likely ignored. On some occasions suggestions are deemed of sufficient value to inspire development but this is the exception, not the norm. The best way to get one's suggestions implemented is to either implement them using one's own resources or pay a developer to do it.

As for documentation, help here is most welcome! :) Probably the best way would be to become a user and/or developer and set up a editing account on our wiki. Having a presence on our primafy IRC channels (irc.freenode.net  #opensim and #opensim-dev) is a good way to get questions answered for developing expertise or creating documentation.

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 10:46 AM, Drew Hart <[hidden email]> wrote:
Hello, all.  I have been following this email thread for a long, long, long time.  I am a psychologist, not a developer, though my day job is managing technology for a law firm - go figure that one out.  Anyway, who is your audience.  I write documentation for lawyers on how to use Word, etc., and would love to help write documentation but I lack developer knowledge to do that.  If someone has a solution, perhaps a mentor or go-to person for questions, I am more than happy to dedicate a lot of time to documentation.  But back to my original point.  Who are you building this for?  It seems to me that much of the discussion implies that only developers will be able to use Open Simulator.  Novices, like me, won't.  Earlier a house analogy was used.  Well, I understand that Open Simulator is only meant to be the frame, but without default extras, without Diva Distros, etc., why would any non-developer get involved?  I can't use Open Simulator as it is too advanced for me.  But yet I am a customer of the service, if you will.  Anyway, just my thoughts.  This is part of the basics. Define your audience.  Define your workers, contributors.  Define your future goals based on those things...etc.  Thanks,

Drew

On Mon, Aug 17, 2015 at 1:16 PM, Diva Canto <[hidden email]> wrote:
Given the enormous investment made in SL viewers, as well as in the server-side OpenSimulator plugins that support them, the default application behavior of the OpenSimulator framework is going to be SL-ish in the foreseeable future. There will hopefully be several improvements to the SL viewers made by the viewer developers with collaboration from us, but these will still be SL viewers. Maybe we can evolve them beyond recognition, but they will still be SL viewers.

Going beyond the default SL-ish application, someone needs to develop 3d clients that are completely different. The development of 3d clients, even SL viewers, is not part of the OpenSimulator project itself; it may come from teams that include some of the OpenSimulator core developers, but those are different teams and different projects. It's 3rd-party development, as far as the framework is concerned. (just like Diva Wifi is 3rd party development, even though I'm a core developer)

The most the OpenSimulator framework can, and will, do is to facilitate sharing of those alternative 3d applications. So if you're developing a Web client for OpenSimulator, the necessary server-side modules that you will certainly need to develop should be easily installable in binary form by other people running OpenSimulator. This can be made on your side so that people need to pay you, if that's what it takes to get you motivated. Ask me about it in the IRC if you want to know more about this, but here's the gist of it:
http://opensimulator.org/wiki/Developing_OpenSim_Addins

I have been quietly experimenting with paid licenses for these OpenSimulator addons; I don't plan to get rich with this, but I'm exploring the territory from a *technical* point of view, so that others can eventually make money with their own ideas for what virtual worlds should look like.

It is very unlikely that the OpenSimulator project will absorb those modules either as dlls or as part of the source code (again, it's a framework, it should be as small as possible), but we certainly encourage their development by providing a mechanism that connects providers and consumers, for both paid and free modules, open source or not.

On 8/17/2015 2:51 AM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
Well the compatibility is in these days just that there are still viewers having the ability to login into opensims as well as in SL. You cannot teleport from opensim to SL, send im's, share inventory or something else. As I see it the compatibly with SL is just wishful thinking of an opensource opensim wanting to be compatible with a more and more closed source SL. 
So that implicit means the core developers will have to do diverge and lay out the things they want to develop. They will longer be able to say let's reverse engineer that cool new features LL has done. That will lead to a roadmap ... I hope.

An yes it is just a prediction of how I think opensim will look in 5 years time. For at least one thing is sure, opensim will still be around in 5 years time :)

2015-08-17 2:39 GMT+02:00 Shaun T. Erickson <[hidden email]>:
I see very little of that happening (except, maybe, the forks). All these (non-core-dev) people writing to the list, with their ideas of a road map and where it should go, seem to forget that unless it tickles the fancy/curiosity of a core developer, or helps their bottom line, financially, or is submitted by someone else willing to support it and the core devs think it's useful and won't conflict with what they want to do, it isn't happening. All you're doing is engaging in wishful thinking.

This is not a product, no matter how we might wish it was. It's a research project, for some, and the core of something that others make money from. Aside from bug fixes (which they've always been happy to take, if done properly), if it doesn't move either of those goals forward, it's unlikely to happen.

I'm not a developer (I'm a Systems Administrator), and I most certainly do not speak for any of the developers. They may disagree with my assessment, and I hope they will not take offense at what I've said. My comments are my own, based on hanging out with them for the past six years, watching, learning and enjoying the use of what they have produced (which is, to be fair, impressive, to say the least). I might wish a lot of things were different, but, you know what - they don't work for me (which is good, because I know myself well enough to know I'd be a terrible boss). I look forward to whatever else they come up with, but I don't for a minute think that anyone can tell them what they should or ought to be doing (well, you can, but that doesn't mean they'll listen).

I do think there's two direct ways you can influence things though - 1) write 3rd party modules to add functionality you want or that changes/overrides existing behavior. As long as you stick to the core framework, so that your module will work with core OpenSim, you have free reign to do whatever you want, and 2) as some have done, pay someone to implement/fix what you want.

I suppose there is a third way - fork it and do whatever you and other like-minded folks want to. But this has been tried before, with only a modicum of success. It *can* be done, but it's a tough row to hoe.

-ste


On 8/16/15 7:44 PM, M.E. Verhagen wrote:
In 5 years time I see ...
 opensim having it's own viewers
There will be no compatibility left with SL
It will have compatibility with other virtual worlds :)
The core will be relative bug free
There will be a decent road map
Opensim will be the apache of the virtual worlds.
There will be many forks of opensim.
There will be providers offering opensim with a one click install
Gadgets like the hmd devices and 3D cams will change the virtual
landscape forever. Opensim will adopt these changes and thrive on it.
_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev





_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev


_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev



_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev




--
Michael Emory Cerquoni

_______________________________________________
Opensim-dev mailing list
[hidden email]
http://opensimulator.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/opensim-dev
Loading...