-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- Hash: SHA1 i think that instead of separating the scripts, we should have a table with script names, some info, like creator etc, and a bunch of checkboxes to give or deny permission for the script to do stuff, with a way for client scripts to trigger a permission request dialog. Among the permissions would be a permission to remember permissions, and another to save the script locally/with the account.
On 22/2/2010 01:51, Morgaine wrote: > Dzon: Nice parable. :-) > > The moral of the story as it pertains to our topic is that when the > superset is ambiguous as in our case (all scripts running client-side > are naturally "client-side scripts"), then the ambiguity won't stop > until you subset the space into disjoint subsets so that you can discuss > each subset separately without confusion. > > That's what I've been trying to do, because "client-side script" is a > universal term that naturally denotes all scripts running in the client > by simple plain English, so you can't call just one subset of the > scripts by that name without creating ambiguity. > > To remove the ambiguity, I split the space of all scripts that run > client-side into two disjoint sets (note that we are using "scripts" and > "programs" interchangeably here): > > * *Trusted / Installed / Not-sandboxed*: These are scripts which > you trust enough to install on your machine, and which typically > act as interfaces between the viewer and your local resources, > such as your files, applications, I/O devices, and so on. Because > they interface to local resources, these scripts cannot run in a > sandbox. In general, these scripts are for user empowerment --- > they can do anything the user wants them to do, and therefore a > very good term for them is "*client extensions*". A large number > of accessibility scripts fall into this category, as well as > scripts for implementing new detached windows such as multi-screen > chat and inventories stored on the PC. > > > * *Untrusted / Not-installed / Sandboxed*: These are scripts which > you do not trust because they arrived by some automatic mechanism, > possibly from in-world. They are never installed, but run in a > protective sandbox while needed, and disappear automatically when > no longer needed. Because they run in a sandbox to (hopefully) > protect your machine from malicious code, these scripts can never > access your local resources, as that would be extremely > dangerous. In general, these scripts are not for user > empowerment, but for enhancing or assisting the displayed content > from the current virtual world in some way. A possible term for > them is therefore "*world extensions*". This kind of script can > implement interesting HUDs using in-world data obtained from the > viewer, or new in-viewer windows, menus and improved viewer > inventory. > > > > A separate question is whether it is wise to allow untrusted scripts to > run on your client at all, given that there will always be bugs and > protection failures, especially in the first few years. But that is a > topic for a later discussion I think, given that currently we have not > yet managed to open a dialogue with Lindens about client-side scripting > at all. > > > Morgaine. > > > > > > =========================================== > > On Mon, Feb 22, 2010 at 12:57 AM, Dzonatas Sol <dzona...@gmail.com > <mailto:dzona...@gmail.com>> wrote: > > Morgaine wrote: > > Carlo, I agree completely with you on the principle of the > implementation. > > On the terminology, not only are you not being logical in your > naming, but you also immediately contradict yourself and > demonstrate beautifully how your suggested naming makes no sense > at all, not even to yourself.� Let me demonstrate: > > > > One of Linden Lab's disqualifiers on attempts to be hired had to do > with a coin placed on any surface and the game of prediction of who > would win based on who placed the last coin on the surface where > there was room left over. > > They go through a bunch of different kinds of objects, so I won't > name them off so they can still use the fair ones. > > However, there was one they were beautifully wrong about: the sphere. > > They even called people "stupid" on the spot who couldn't figure out > the sphere ended up with even amount of moves. Long story short > about... stupid. > > We could challenge this since somehow it became more than personal, > or maybe it was meant to be challenged eventually. It wasn't their > standard procedure whatever it was. > > If we take a perfect sphere with a perfect surface, there is an > obvious flaw that wouldn't allow it to be even in number of moves. > > When LL said "here is a sphere the size of a quarter in diameter... > 1 2 3 4 5 6" as one points top, bottom, left, right, back, front. > And says "Stupid" with a superiority look. > > Obviously the person that was challenged, the one to be hired, said > "Odd." > > If you know if it is "even" or "odd" then you know who gets the last > move, and wins. > > Further on the surface about a perfect sphere, if it diameter is > perfect no matter what tangent coordinate picked out on the surface, > then the surface could be eventually said it is infinite. There > would be infinite possibilities of any location on the surface that > could be tangent coordinated. > > If that is true, which gave the possibility of infinite surface, > then one could also put another perfect sphere nearby the first > perfect sphere. > > Here is the beauty of this, if the first perfect sphere has an > infinite surface and the second perfect sphere has an infinite > surface, then they are both the same infinite surface. > > The rules of this game never specified where to put the next perfect > sphere. > > Now if left some space in between the two spheres, then it should > still be "Even" number of moves if we continue with this one. > > What we put the sphere tangent or in union with the first one. It's > the same surface, and the game was about the surface. > > If it is plainly tangent, then there would be one less coin to put > on the surface, and it would be "Odd." > > No? Not convinced, yet? You say that would be two less coins? And > you claim "Even?" > > Let's add another perfect sphere... > > Same infinite surface. > > When do we stop? > > > > > _______________________________________________ > Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: > http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev > Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: GnuPG v2.0.12 (MingW32) Comment: Using GnuPG with Mozilla - http://enigmail.mozdev.org/ iEYEARECAAYFAkuCOvEACgkQ8ZFfSrFHsmWb5QCeI7FKwFFU/B42Eo3oDnDa3/2+ cpoAn1yPvCFTv0qFw4y0Ug9yqZr94/bh =Z9Lb -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- _______________________________________________ Policies and (un)subscribe information available here: http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSource-Dev Please read the policies before posting to keep unmoderated posting privileges
