Or at least the ability to disable them if the object is no-mod.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 5:41 AM, Lear Cale wrote:
> On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> > On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:51:31AM -0800, Ann Otoole wrote:
> >> If you guys want to really help then give us the ability t
The intent isn't to try to exceed or even come close to hardware-based
virtual memory. The intent is to isolate the effects of memory
overuse of one part of the system, to keep this from affecting other
parts.
However, I'd wager that you're right that it would involve a
noteworthy performance pen
On 2010-03-11, at 07:48, Lear Cale wrote:
> I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
> script memory, it would have a dramatically lower impact on the server
> process as a whole, and no impact on the other server processes
> sharing the same machine.
Decades of experi
Fine, don't waste your time responding. Go do better things.
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 6:39 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> It makes little sense to me to put time into convincing a random non-Linden.
> And since LL is going to ignore the whole discussion/idea anyway, I have
> better things to do. Sorry.
I disagree, Argent. If the server process does explicit swapping for
script memory, it would have a dramatically lower impact on the server
process as a whole, and no impact on the other server processes
sharing the same machine.
> It doesn't matter whether the swapping is done by the OS or by th
On Thu, Mar 11, 2010 at 7:18 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:51:31AM -0800, Ann Otoole wrote:
>> If you guys want to really help then give us the ability to disable scripts
>> by
>> attachment creator name. There are certain products that cause problems. Made
>> by people LL pr
What would be wrong with a dialog that informs the visitor they can have an
enhanced experience by accepting the environment settings that are optimal.
Of course some of us would want those settings to become an available option
anywhere so it is a matter of the owner providing the settings and t
On 2010-03-11, at 06:21, Jonathan Irvin wrote:
> Maybe we can handle scripts like Linux handles memory. Use up an
> allotted space based on requirements and if it exceeds that (among
> other scripts using the same shared environment) it can begin to
> swap in it's own little cluster.
It doe
Truth be told, we're all humans. Give a monkey enough rope to hang himself
and he probably will. A dynamic system makes sense because the people who
only need a small slice can live happily and the people who need more
resources have the flexibility they need...
Of course, those are ideal condit
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:51:31AM -0800, Ann Otoole wrote:
> If you guys want to really help then give us the ability to disable scripts by
> attachment creator name. There are certain products that cause problems. Made
> by people LL props up as shining examples of how creators should be BTW lmao
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 03:54:44PM +0100, Lance Corrimal wrote:
> plain wrong, since you can't NOT wear system hair.
> you can wear system hair of length 0, otherwise known as a "bald hair base".
> the one you're wearing while creating an alpha layer in a viewer with this
> unfinished patch become
It makes little sense to me to put time into convincing a random non-Linden.
And since LL is going to ignore the whole discussion/idea anyway, I have
better things to do. Sorry.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:56:36AM -0500, Lear Cale wrote:
> If it were a simple change, I'm sure it would be considered
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 21:00:16 -0700, Andromeda Quonset wrote:
> I'd like to see the entire alpha wearables support and feature
> removed in it's entirety. Ever since it was introduced, AV's are
> generally invisible unless I am within 5 meters of them. I'm more
> than a little tired of attendi
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 22:40:14 -0500, Johnnie Carling wrote:
> Henri, any chance you could add a color/tint setting to the tattoo layer?
Very little chances... After the next Cool SL Viewer release, I'll
concentrate on branding it in a way that is compatible with the TPV
(and this branding stuff wi
> Thanks for responding, Maya!
>
> I don't think that the AV's I wasn't seeing were running 2.0, or were
> necessarily using an alpha mask. I started seeing this with sim
> 1.34. I have tried several viewers, and it seems to be present in
> the viewer I prefer using: The Windows Cool Viewer
At 10:42 PM 3/10/2010, you wrote:
>Andromeda Quonset wrote:
> > I'd like to see the entire alpha wearables support and feature
> > removed in it's entirety. Ever since it was introduced, AV's are
> > generally invisible unless I am within 5 meters of them. I'm more
> > than a little tired of atte
On Wed, 10 Mar 2010 19:22:38 -0600, Maya Remblai
wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>> My guess is that very few old timers, power users and role-players will
>> bother with 2.0 once third parties viewers implementing the v1 UI will
>> have all the main features of v2.0 backported...
>>
> I'd say
17 matches
Mail list logo
