> 2010/2/5 Kakurady Drakenar
>>
>> I don't like the name "opensource-dev". The old name, SLDev, fits just
>> well - i
Yes, but Linden Research owns "SL".
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information available here:
http://wiki.secondlife.com/wiki/OpenSour
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert Martin wrote:
> ive noticed that there is a link on the secondlife.com dashboard to
> download sl 2.0 (with a target of http://secondlife.com/beta-viewer/)
> is this a case of released to soon or what??
Your question cannot be answered unless you sign an
On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:28 PM, Tillie Ariantho wrote:
> On 17.02.2010 21:25, Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin) wrote:
>> On Wed, Feb 17, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Robert Martin wrote:
>>> ive noticed that there is a link on the secondlife.com dashboard to
>>> download sl
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 7:42 AM, Morgaine
wrote:
> I referred recently to Linden's internal project "Firefly" to add
> client-side scripting to SL viewers. This has been the topic of open
> discussion at several Office Hours with Lindens in SL, but that openness has
> not extended to many design
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 8:45 AM, Argent Stonecutter
wrote:
> Java and Mono/.NET intermediate language can do anything native code can...
Quibble: I can't speak for the MSFT-proprietary platforms, but Java
code runs subject to the classloader's SecurityManager. I do hear
talk that Silverlight is
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 9:06 AM, Frisby, Adam wrote:
> From what I understand, Mono ended up implementing a lot of that for
> Silverlight; although I do not know how the security holds up compared to the
> official .NET runtime; but AppDomains + CAS is a pretty rock solid sandbox on
> Windows.
On Thu, Feb 18, 2010 at 10:57 AM, Kent Quirk (Q Linden)
wrote:
> This makes me sad.
There's lots to be sad about.
I think current Linden Research policies regarding viewer design and
development has severely damaged the trust relationship that should
exist within an open-source developer commun
The socket-based approach has the advantages of being
OS-platform-neutral, which CLR is not. A JVM-based scripting system
leveraging JSR-223 tech would be more platform-neutral, but is
certainly not what anybody could call "lightweight".
But either of those approaches (as well as others) could be
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 2:49 PM, Edward Artaud wrote:
> For client-side scripts to be something worth
> prioritizing implementing in mainstream viewers, their usage must be
> based on the assumption that some large percentage (80+% maybe) of
> attachment scripts, for example, would be running cli
On Fri, Feb 19, 2010 at 3:08 PM, Domino Marama
wrote:
> I'd hope things like attachment sizing scripts would move to client side
> scripts.
I guess that would be nice, but the data that would have to flow to
the attached hair prims would be substantialand the prims would
still have to be scr
On Sun, Feb 21, 2010 at 11:29 AM, Ricky wrote:
> Look good to me. As you said, a scripting engine (or three) could be
> written as a plugin. Then we'd only have to decide which plugin(s)
> get shipped with the client by default.
And a well-written JSR-223 plug-in could give you all the JSR-223
On Wed, Feb 24, 2010 at 12:08 AM, Imaze Rhiano wrote:
> Now - one of following scenarios would happen - what I should do - and
> what would be LL's reaction...
Long story short, it seems clear that as soon as somebody is suspected
of using a ToS-violating viewer, the channel that viewer is runni
On Thu, Feb 25, 2010 at 11:45 AM, Gigs wrote:
> Henri Beauchamp wrote:
>> Thank you for contacting us regarding your issue.
>> I am sorry but we can only offer support on issues with the official
>> SL viewer.
> This sort of response is completely unacceptable. You weren't asking
> for support fo
It seems to me that this incessant desire to use software licencing
and a "viewer whitelist" as a lever on downstream viewer developers is
an attempt to reduce the costs of managing the behavior of Linden
Research's customers.
Obviously Linden Research management believes that doing this
wholesale
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 8:30 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> And I don’t think opting out of the "viewer registry" should or ever will be
> an option.
I haven't heard anybody official say that the registry was mandatory.
Yet.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe i
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 9:38 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> An LSL function somewhere to identify viewers would help.
> Leave then to us the ability to make inworld tools to control who gets in or
> not.
Your attention is directed to SVC-4636. I'm sure your support would
be welcomed by some.
Others
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:30 PM, Miro wrote:
> Some research has been done into how the device works. Apparently it
> exploits a vulnerability in QuickTime to access users' computers and
> "mine" information about what software is, or was, installed on them.
With the advent of Viewer2 and promi
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:49 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> hm, i didn't thought he did collect IP addresses, but even if the system
> does catch IP addresses (which isn't such a big deal if you keep your
> machine safe) an IP address wouldn't be of any help identifying
> malicious clients, unl
-- Forwarded message --
From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
Date: Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:04 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] FAQ posted for Third Party Viewer Policy
To: Tigro Spottystripes
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 10:59 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> An user agent str
On Sun, Feb 28, 2010 at 11:43 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> Without proofs that might have just as well have come from the butt of
> Neil or some other person pissed at Skills for catching their customers
> using malicious clients.
Since the methods are secret, we have only the vendor's word t
Nice. But...erm..."Snowgobe Documentation 2.0"? :-)
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 2:02 AM, Brandon Husbands wrote:
> http://dimentox.com/sg2dox/ snowglobe2 doxygen
> full zip http://www.dimentox.com/html.zip
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information availa
On Mon, Mar 1, 2010 at 5:13 PM, Bryon Ruxton wrote:
> I talked about banning every unknown or unidentified viewer that is not in
> the registry should I have a way to detect the viewer agent. Just like I
> have the right to restrict an unidentified web agent or telling an Internet
> Explorer 6.0
On Mon, Mar 8, 2010 at 8:40 PM, Lear Cale wrote:
> It would be nice if everything were free, too...
> Until now, script memory has seemed to be a free lunch. Well, the
> free lunch is over, and we'll have to deal with it.
I wouldn't mind "dealing with" lunch not being free if a crappy
bloated sc
I'd be more interested in the answer to Ann's "are you running 8
private islands to a host now?" question.
I'd heard the claim that that was happening on mainland; that it might
be happening to estate owners too (with no notice) is new to me.
It's certainly germane to discussion of the cross-regi
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:05 AM, Opensource Obscure wrote:
> Yesterday Jopsy Pendragon submitted this feature request
> to the public JIRA:
>
> llSetAgentEnvironment( key agent, [ param list ] );
> http://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-5520
As long as I'm *asked for permission* before somebody I
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:43 AM, Lear Cale wrote:
> When we say how much memory a script is "actually using", that means
> the amount of memory the script is making semantic usage of. However,
> the script is *allocated* a larger amount. This larger amount is the
> amount that matters to the s
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 11:36 AM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> parcel and sim owners shouldn't need to ask for permission...
Nonsense.
If you want to reconfigure my viewer, you need my permission. Every time.
___
Policies and (un)subscribe information
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:03 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> sim owners can already control the Sun position in your client, the rest
> of the WL parameters is just an extensions of that
That's a pretty feeble application of a slippery slope argument.
> there should be a way to set your client
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:14 PM, Marine Kelley wrote:
> The RLV does just that, force your viewer Windlight settings with an object
> that you own.
And that's consensual. What Tigro's talking about isn't. He wants you
to have to opt-out of his mandatory viewer configuration.
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:20 PM, Tigro Spottystripes
wrote:
> i know, but i think that it would be better if the client itself worked
> like what i described, without the need of third party additions
I think it would be better if you'd leave my viewer the heck alone
unless you've been given per
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:23 PM, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> You can already override environmental settings. Option to set to
> region default should do just that, apply region default settings.
> Nobody is showing anything down your throat lol.
So it wouldn't take effect if I'm not running the Win
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:29 PM, Kelly Linden wrote:
> Windlight settings should be a part of the build and not something
> you have to opt into or be bugged with a dialog to see.*
Well, then how about automatic applications of animations to your
avatar, because a "content creator" thought it wo
> That aside, I could see 'reset the damn sky' as a top level action
It's more than "sky and water". It's also the optical properties of
the air around you, among other things.
If everybody was on Emerald, where Windlight settings and draw
distance are easy to tweak with a control that pops out o
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kelly Linden wrote:
> Absolutely. In fact, being easy to change / fix / revert would be a pre-req
> in my mind.
Well, none of the "official" viewers do that, so we can wait until they do.
I'm sure the Emerald folks would be delighted to see you implement
their
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:57 PM, Kelly Linden wrote:
> They should be voluntary in the sense that any content or place in SL is
> voluntary. The very sky around you should be part of the content, part of
> the place. I can't get over how awesome I think that would be.
Well, get over it; softwa
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 1:17 PM, Latif Khalifa wrote:
> Don't let what the actual "Estate / Sim Windlight preset / day cycle
> options" VWR-7677 proposal says stay in way of you inventing fictional
> problems.
The *actual* discussion was about SVC-5520.
If you'd really like to hijack it, I supp
On Wed, Mar 10, 2010 at 12:06 PM, Lear Cale wrote:
> Which is what we mean by "cost". Price is what you are asked to pay.
> Cost is what you actually pay.
When discussing performance, "cost" would refer to what actually
impacts performance, as in "an expensive calculation".
Here the script memo
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 8:27 AM, Carlo Wood wrote:
> I suppose that some people do NOT want a shared experience
> and to live in their own little isolated world. Well, can't
> deny them power over their own viewer,
Good, thank you. Because there are people who don't seem to believe in
that; that
-- Forwarded message --
From: Maggie Leber (sl: Maggie Darwin)
Date: Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 9:24 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Request for comments about
llSetAgentEnvironment / SVC-5520
To: Soft Linden
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 2:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> A totally heal
On Fri, Mar 12, 2010 at 3:31 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> This is a company with an open source project, not an open source project
> with a company.
That statement I think reflects an important difference in perception.
That sentence would be fine in an internal Linden Research
communication. But
On Sun, Mar 14, 2010 at 12:33 PM, Soft Linden wrote:
> You're putting a term in quotes when you're the one who introduced it
> to the discussion. You're then picking apart another party at length
> for your selection of words.
I most certainly did not introduce either "throttling" or "enthusiast
41 matches
Mail list logo
