I use SLv2 code base viewers unless I need to go into complex build
environments. The SLv2 code has a lot of performance issues that don't exist in
the 1.x code. And it has nothing to do with avatar attachments since the
crashes
occur in regions with only me in them. When I need to go to those "fabulous
builds" (with ktris/fr measurements in the range of 3 million polys or more) I
am forced to use snowglobe 1.4. I think there is a lot of efficiency to be
gained from revisiting the menus/commands and considering a multi row user
configurable hot bar for people to customize for the modes they operate in.
So anyway...
How about soliciting requirements from us customers and then letting us
customers prioritize them and then you go through the process of explaining why
you will or will not implement. Maybe there is a bastion of software
methodology
expertise amongst us customers and we could organize a requirements system for
you. Then the OS developers can choose if they want to continue with the high
demand features in a TPV for SL or just take what the customers are asking for
to open sim. Oh and metrics accessible to in world devs to back up decisions
regarding establishing limits would be good so we can run the tests ourselves
and see if we come up with different results. Like how scriptless attachments
don't slow me down on tp or crossings so to me the issue people have, as proven
by having them get rid of the lousy scripts infesting hair and shoes and then
them wearing the scriptless attachments while teleporting and they stop having
issues is important. Just making assumptions all attachments are the cause of
all issues is an error since the issue appears to solidly be associated with
the
scripts.
>> Linden Lab will absolutely have the final word about what goes into
>> the
>>viewer.
>>
Sure. Of course. I for one have no expectation of LL putting in the jiggle
feature. I don't even care because I don't use it nor any viewer with it. But I
am one person. From my technical perspective opinion it is a hack and does not
take into account chest/neck/pectoral attachments that may be part of an
expensive oufit. Therefore it is not what I would call a professional feature
because it interferes with or fails dominant use cases and requirements even
though it is a very much in demand capability that keeps vast numbers of people
from using your viewer as they openly state jiggle is why they do not use LL
viewers.
>> We're a multi-million dollar business with hundreds of thousands of
>>customers,
Yes. As long as we customers, as an aggregate group, decide to keep giving you
all those millions of dollars.
>> some kind of product management and quality control
Really? Why do previously fixed defects keep coming back? There is one I have
always wondered about. How many times has an LL dev fixed the broken high
resolution snapshot feature the majority of businesses rely upon, or rather
once
upon a time relied upon, for product imagery to create effective marketing?
That
is just one defect I recall having been fixed 3 times and then obviously
overwritten by someone's obsolete code from their hard drive. SQA, or apparent
lack of it, is a frequent theme amongst LL bashing festivals in various forums
I
have seen. Since I am not in your building and privy to your actual processes I
can only go by what is observed in your deliverables. As for product
management?
I can't really go into this topic without getting personal so I won't.
BTW large groups of customers screaming at you is a serious symptom the board
needs to concern themselves with. IMHO anyway. I suppose you can stop holding
office hours and eliminate that issue if people won't maintain their
professional bearing and sense of self control in meetings.
Is LL even open to constructive feedback about all aspects of LL's product
delivery? Or is this restricted only to what LL exposes for feedback? Since
this
list is OS dev then I am curious about where the feedback mechanisms will be
for
the other aspects of LL's service delivery.
Thank you for the opportunity of having a dialog.
-----------------------------
From: Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence) <o...@lindenlab.com>
To: Henri Beauchamp <sl...@free.fr>
Cc: opensource-dev@lists.secondlife.com
Sent: Mon, August 16, 2010 2:56:25 PM
Subject: Re: [opensource-dev] Open Viewer Development Announcement
I've said this before, and I'll repeat it again here:
Don't waste everyones time suggesting that we throw away Viewer 2, or that
we revert the UI to Viewer 1. It is absolutely not going to happen, and
any suggestion to that effect will be ignored.
That does not mean that we don't recognize that some choices in V2 were not
optimal, and that some probably need to be revisited, and we're open to
doing that. But we will do it in the context of calm discussions of what
problems exist and creative ideas for how to solve them. We are not moving
backwards, we are moving forwards.
Think about it for a minute - there are an infinite number of possible
solutions for how to build a UI for a virtual world viewer - what are the
odds that the first or second attempt produced the best possible UI? We
need new and creative ideas focused on specific problem descriptions.
That is all described on our process documentation pages on the wiki, but
I'll hit the high points here:
-----------------
* Linden Lab will absolutely have the final word about what goes
into
the viewer.
>We're a multi-million dollar business with hundreds of thousands of
>customers, and we need to deploy a coherent and reliable software
>product
>to them. If anyone thinks they can do that without some kind of product
>management and quality control, they are welcome to go build a business
>the size and complexity of ours and demonstrate it.
>
_______________________________________________
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
