SLUniverse Forums

Psyke Phaeton · 04-26-2008, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

If that was only true ... Here is a preview of the SL 2.0 RC client (tongue firmly in cheek ... but fingers crossed just incase)

Lets spend $1.74 together and maybe it won't be so bad??

It would never work. We control the client, forced advertising will fail.

Tyche Shepherd · 04-26-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Psyke Phaeton

Lets spend $1.74 together and maybe it won't be so bad??

It would never work. We control the client, forced advertising will fail.

With the current open client model yes - But a step back to a closed client (possibly with a 3rd party licensed client model ) and possible ad-free premium clients and it could work .

Psyke Phaeton · 04-26-2008, 06:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

With the current open client model yes - But a step back to a closed client (possibly with a 3rd party licensed client model ) and possible ad-free premium clients and it could work .

The client hacking culture is too ingrained and forced advertising would just give more incentive. Horse has bolted.

Beebo Brink · 04-26-2008, 07:06 AM

Until LL has considerably improved the grid performance, and provided some value besides a stipend for Premium membership, I think the free accounts should continue. Right now, other than as a requirement for land ownership, it serves little purpose and I have the sinking feeling many people would consider SL simply isn't worth $10/mo.

After reading through months of extensive, heated debate on this issue, I've migrated over to the "allow free accounts" side of the issue. They provide the economic stimulus that funds large portions of the grid tier, all of which is money that ends up in LL's pocket.

The one change I would make, however, is to limit Inventory size for free accounts. If you want to store 25,000 objects in your Inventory, pay up. If you can keep under 5,000 items, then stay free. That limit alone could improve grid performance, at least for individuals who don't seem to get how that load degrades their experience.

Joshua Nightshade · 04-26-2008, 07:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

If that was only true ... Here is a preview of the SL 2.0 RC client (tongue firmly in cheek ... but fingers crossed just incase)

Aodhan McDunnough · 04-26-2008, 07:50 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

The one change I would make, however, is to limit Inventory size for free accounts. If you want to store 25,000 objects in your Inventory, pay up. If you can keep under 5,000 items, then stay free. That limit alone could improve grid performance, at least for individuals who don't seem to get how that load degrades their experience.

I really really like this proposal. It can be done and it's fair enough even to free accounts.

But before we can ask LL to do something like this some issues have to be addressed.

Trash should count towards inventory otherwise Trash will be used as an infinite storage space. If you get spammed with objects you have to clear out trash in order to accept more items.
Problem: objects packed in objects will still count as one object. So if one is industrious one can conceivably have infinite storage by nested object storing (object in object in object ...) thus getting around the limits. Inventory loading however is the same whether nested or not, so we have no change in impact with object nesting.

At any rate maybe just simply limiting the visible inventory count will be a step in the right direction, if only to reduce load.

caroline ra · 04-26-2008, 08:20 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tyche Shepherd

With the current open client model yes - But a step back to a closed client (possibly with a 3rd party licensed client model ) and possible ad-free premium clients and it could work .

YES YES.....just like the BBC

Beebo Brink · 04-26-2008, 08:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aodhan McDunnough

Problem: objects packed in objects will still count as one object. So if one is industrious one can conceivably have infinite storage by nested object storing (object in object in object ...) thus getting around the limits.

I have no problem with nested storage. It keeps Inventory at a manageable level on more than just a visual level, at least from what I've read. So if you want to keep 50k worth of stuff stored in 10 objects, go for it.

I think I also read that keeping objects in nested folders also reduces your traveling load. But don't quote me on that one.

Aodhan McDunnough · 04-26-2008, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

I have no problem with nested storage. It keeps Inventory at a manageable level on more than just a visual level, at least from what I've read. So if you want to keep 50k worth of stuff stored in 10 objects, go for it.

I think I also read that keeping objects in nested folders also reduces your traveling load. But don't quote me on that one.

I don't think it reduces the traveling load but it certainly reduces the time it takes to open the inventory and get a complete list.

Cocoanut Koala · 04-26-2008, 12:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aodhan McDunnough

@Sooz, Coco, and others

Before you get your hopes high in the wrong area I think I need to clear some possible misconceptions.

TAO OF LINDEN

The Tao of Linden is very much like what we practice in our company. It's not a simplistic "Do what you want, ignoring the priorities." LL uses the Jira issue tracker (our company uses Trac, which has less features).

How that works is that issues are raised in the form of unassigned tickets. If you look at the Jira you will see terms like "normal" and "showstopper." Those are priorities. And when given the choice of tickets to pick up, a developer has to pick from showstoppers first unless he doesn't have the qualifications to work on that issue.

Priorities are assigned by someone in the know, usually a project head or committee who has full knowledge of how the system works. A CEO can influence these decisions but only at the general level, even more general now that the CEO is non-tech.

In summary, it's still a pick what you want system, but picking has to consider the priorities. Why do developers pick? That way you get the most willing developer who has the right capability.

So what am I expecting? M Linden is not going to have an influence on how fast our network issues are resolved. I think Philip being freed from the CEO spot will actually be the thing that speeds up solutions.

Oh, don't get me wrong!

I have no hopes. None at all. As far as I can tell, the Tao is going nowhere.

Nothing is going to happen that Philip doesn't like. He is going to have his little utopian workplace even though it results in a hellhole for his customers.

And I think you have very optimistic assumptions about how the employees pick what they do, based on how things work in your workplace.

Quote:

WHY SHINY BEFORE ASSET PROBLEMS?

Software developers are not swiss army knives. There are fields of specialization. Shiny stuff is the realm of the graphics/client programmers, asset issues are in the realm of database and network programmers. You rarely have people who are experts in both.

Fixing things or making new things is not like a recipe where you can tell in advance how long something will take. If the problem is a bug (e.g. permissions getting messed up) then the time is usually predictable. If the problem requires new capabilities (e.g. developing a new way of handling asset transfers over the network) then the time frame is VERY unpredictable.

Overall I really expect the Shiny team to keep churning out solutions at a much faster rate since they are mostly tweaking. The network group I expect to be running hundreds of experiments with other approaches to the network issues. I expect their solutions to be much longer in coming.

As for the oft-stated reasoning that not everyone can work on everything, you miss the point.

They need to hire more of the "database and network programmers," and lay off more of the "graphics client programmers."

coco

Cocoanut Koala · 04-26-2008, 12:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Sooz Pascale

I DO realize that there are many many wonderful people who have free accounts. However, the sheer numbers of them make grid performance less than optimum. I am PAYING for this. I would have no problem at all with LL telling those folks to start paying or leave. I am POSITIVE that the vast majority of these good eggs, who certainly have the ole buckaroos for internet access and a good computer would not...mind...at ...all...paying $10 a month for the service which they enjoy.

Sooz

I don't like paying for them, either. But here's the thing: LL doesn't care if we have to pay for them, while paying for us, or even care about us paying for anything.

I think their long-term plan doesn't involve us paying for anything. It involves getting corporations to buy islands, and everyone else to come in and look at the ads; i.e., learn about and interact with the brand.

We - and our $10, or however much - are completely extraneous and expendable. We are not in the long-term plan.

I think they are just holding onto us, and giving us just enough attention to keep our money coming in while they "still need it."

coco

Cocoanut Koala · 04-26-2008, 01:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Aodhan McDunnough

objects packed in objects will still count as one object. So if one is industrious one can conceivably have infinite storage by nested object storing (object in object in object ...) thus getting around the limits. Inventory loading however is the same whether nested or not, so we have no change in impact with object nesting.

Well, that SORT of gets around it; sometimes. Stuff packed in boxes is very likely over time to become unavailable to access.

coco

Aodhan McDunnough · 04-26-2008, 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala

[1] And I think you have very optimistic assumptions about how the employees pick what they do, based on how things work in your workplace.

[2] They need to hire more of the "database and network programmers," and lay off more of the "graphics client programmers."

coco

[1] Not optimistic. Given what we know of the ratios of graphics to network programmers the ratio of the kinds of fixes we see IMO reflects that they are operating similarly to how my office operates.

SL used to need more or less a balanced number between the two groups of programmers. Of course that ratio is no longer optimal for SL at this stage.

I do agree somewhat with what you say in [2] that they need more database/network programmers ... and that's precisely what they announced right?

Ten · 04-26-2008, 01:28 PM

ESC uses a HUD on the OnRez client for CSI that is virtually undetachable. You have to know the fun little command to get it to go away... if I remember right, it's something akin to /99999 detach

...which isn't widely publicized.

Cocoanut Koala · 04-26-2008, 01:29 PM

Yes, I believe they asked for more people to "save the grid."

coco

Aodhan McDunnough · 04-26-2008, 01:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cocoanut Koala

Yes, I believe they asked for more people to "save the grid."

coco

Now I have two linked guesses here. One would be that they need the manpower (the numbers) for grid maintenance. We're talking an army of sysads.

Second is maybe they're hoping a hotshot or two will be among them that comes up with the magical solution that would vastly improve management of traffic.

I'm very much interested in how this thing will turn out. No one else is in the very unenviable position LL is in having to manage that huge volume of real-time streaming data and assets over such a large network. Not even Google has to face that challenge. For this I am not looking at SL as a service or a world, but rather as a data routing conundrum.

I am watching because if someone manages to find that magical solution, a new way of handling the assets over a contiguous grid, that someone may have found a solution that could greatly benefit the web in the future.

Kalia Meiklejohn · 04-26-2008, 01:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zenbones2000

Since noone elst has yet said it, Stephen King "The Stand."

I sure hope we are not headed thataway. Seems unlikely, but I'm moving to Boulder anyways LOL

zb

That avatar is too cute, please change it, it's distracting me.

Kalia

Brenda Archer · 04-26-2008, 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Beebo Brink

And herein lies the risk of a deathknell for SL. If creating an advertising platform is the underlying motivation for the grid (an all-too persuasive notion, given LL's actions), then we're doomed, because it's an inefficient, expensive and cumbersome medium for advertising.

I 100% agree. LL needs to think of themselves as a HOSTING COMPANY. By hosting I mean something like a website hosting company, but in 3D.

In fact based on some things he's said (about advertisers needing to be participants in a social world, and respectful of its culture), I would bet the new CEO does get it, to a degree. But my fear is that the view is one of SL as Web 2.0, a la MySpace or eHarmony, rather than as a new type of hosting. I hope my guess is off on this.

SL is too different from anything that's going in 2D to just apply tired old marketing assumptions to it, as has been proved over and over. I get frustrated at the way too many people can't get their brains around a new idea, but isn't the definition of insanity doing the same Fail again and again?

04-26-2008, 07:06 AM	#129 (permalink)
Beebo Brink Uppity Alt I'm the woman your mother warned you about. Join Date: Jul 2007 Posts: 2,899 SL Join Date: October 2006 Business: Brazen Women Shapes and Skins SLShopper Ads: 20 My Mood:	Until LL has considerably improved the grid performance, and provided some value besides a stipend for Premium membership, I think the free accounts should continue. Right now, other than as a requirement for land ownership, it serves little purpose and I have the sinking feeling many people would consider SL simply isn't worth $10/mo. After reading through months of extensive, heated debate on this issue, I've migrated over to the "allow free accounts" side of the issue. They provide the economic stimulus that funds large portions of the grid tier, all of which is money that ends up in LL's pocket. The one change I would make, however, is to limit Inventory size for free accounts. If you want to store 25,000 objects in your Inventory, pay up. If you can keep under 5,000 items, then stay free. That limit alone could improve grid performance, at least for individuals who don't seem to get how that load degrades their experience. __________________ Browse http://www.BrazenWomen.com

04-26-2008, 01:29 PM	#140 (permalink)
Cocoanut Koala Coco's Cottages There is no sanctuary. You may think there is, but there is not. Join Date: Jun 2007 Posts: 6,368 Business: Coco's Cottages SLShopper Ads: 3 Awards: 1	Yes, I believe they asked for more people to "save the grid." coco

04-26-2008, 05:33 PM	#144 (permalink)
Brenda Archer Tired