Oz Linden Interview Summary

16:00 – Making the needed fixes is going to take considerable time. Any change to llRequestAgentData() is on hold indefinitely (17:15). When they reach a point where they are again considering changing it, they will post in the Scripting Forum with information on the planned change. Oz expects most of the use cases depending on the function to need very little change. They anticipate making changes in stages.

18:10 – Q: Since the Phoenix Viewer will have the true Online Status feature people are concerned the FS/PH Team will have to with draw the viewer and/or the Lab will block it from the grid. Is this something the Lab is considering?

Oz: No. The answer is longer, but ‘no’ is the answer. Oz and the Lab are not concerned about the version of Phoenix with the true Online Status being around. They expect people will be upgrading to newer and better viewers. So, they see it as a self-resolving problem.

Blocking a viewer is something the Lab will only consider… I said consider and I think that is most accurate, when there is some overriding issue.

18:50 – Also, there are some really neat features coming, both shared experience features and viewer enhancements, that will require viewer updates to enjoy. So, old viewers will peacefully pass away without a need to block them.

19:00 – The features will be presented to the TPV Dev’s as early as possible for inclusion in their viewers.

19:30 – Jessica talk about getting a release of Phoenix out without the True Online Status feature ASAP. They have several bugs in Phoenix that they are working to fix. That is taking some time. But, soon now…

20:00 – Jessica says something about people needing to upgrade soon because of feature changes. Oz thinks it is more on mark to say they will WANT to upgrade. This is a nuance in phrasing. But, it has implications. I think it is in line with other statements and suggests the Lab is not going to push users. Their plan is the entice them. They said they would not block V1.23 and they haven’t.

20:50 – 2.i : You must not display any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of any other Second Life user.

2.j : You must not include any information regarding the computer system, software, or network connection of the user in any messages sent to other viewers, except when explicitly elected by the user of your viewer.

21:15 – Jessica points out these rules impact the viewer ID tagging system. At 22:00 the video is acting up and it is hard to understand Jessica. She talks about many in the community saying the Lab is embarrassed that more people are using TPV’s and thus wants to hide the tags.

22:15 – Jessica talks about the Linden statement that new users were being bullied to change to a TPV. Jessica did her own research with an Alt and found out that is in fact the case. She also points out that many in the community think those that do change to a TPV stay with the TPV. So, many think there is more to braking tags than just the bullying issue.

22:35 – Q: Does the Lab want to stop or slow migration from the LL viewer to TPV’s?

Audio problems through to 25:00. Then Oz starts the answer to the above question.

Oz says the primary motivation for breaking viewer ID tags was from talking with users, new signups, and finding they were having “negative social interactions.” The Lab and many other software development companies see downloading anything as a sigficant point of friction for users. That many new users were being told they had downloaded the ‘wrong’ viewer and needed to go download another viewer was a significant problem for the Lab. One can guess some significant number of people and it’s a fact some number simply left SL rather than download another viewer and thus the reaction from the Lab.

That these abuses were happening over a considerable time fed into the decision to break tags.

28:00 – Oz points out that if they had wanted to make it look like everyone was running the LL viewer, they could have done that. It would have been the same complexity of change as what they did to remove tags. The Lab actually expended additional effort to make the removal of tags as neutral in appearance as possible.

28:40 – Jessica brings up the point being speculated that the Lab was embarrassed by the number of people on TPV’s and wanted to hide the information.

Oz says no. There is no big secret how few people are using the LL viewer. The Lab’s take on which viewer a user uses is that it is NOT very important which viewer a user uses as long as; it does not break privacy, isn’t a griefer or copybot tool, works well, is reasonably up to date with new Lab features so its user gets a good impression of SL. Or otherwise, it becomes a drag on LL’s business.

I am always surprised when someone thinks there is some financial or business motivation for the Lab to want people in the ‘official’ viewer. The answer seems obvious.

6 thoughts on “Oz Linden Interview Summary

  1. Pingback: New TPV policy changes - Page 100 - SLUniverse Forums

  2. Pingback: WHAT IS THIS CRAP? » And imagine how far we could fall

  3. Excellent Nalate’s, thanks for posting this “reader’s digest edition” it’s nice to finally read the end result of this review.

    One point which kind of stuck out though, Parcel WindLight… Seriously ? google “LightShare OpenSim” then google “LightShare Aurora-Sim” and you’ll make some interesting discoveries which have nothing to do with PH/FS or LL but rather Parcel/Region LightShare has been in OpenSim / Aurora-Sim for almost 3 years, supported by Imprudence Astra, Singularity and a couple of others…. by the way, it works wonderfully. Why not be up front about it and take from what is already designed, tested, implemented, debugged & known good ??? OpenSim being the best free idea sandbox & test resource that LL has. (oh I forgot, all the folks that were there @ LL when IBM argued that point are all laid off, so the corporate memory is NULL_SPACE.)

    I guess the next new innovation that LL & PH/FS dream up will be “Flexi-Regions” or “Flexi-Sims” which will look just like Mega-Regions or Variable Regions (as used in Aurora-Sim)…

    Sorry but it does leave a bit of an unpleasant after taste .

    • I’ve met you in OSGrid and appreciate the help you gave me. Thanks for being in both places and helping others.

      OpenSim does have a nicer version of WindLight in their Lightshare. I suppose while the OpenSim people could give the viewer side of Lightshare to LL and the Lab could use it, the Lab’s server is not open source. For the Lab to take the OpenSim Lightshare they would have to comply with the open source license. I seriously doubt that will happen.

      If you listen to Oz at 31:50, he is talking about how there is a mixed opinion about open source within the Lab. I find that completely understandable considering how some open source people have abused the Lab in the past.

      Flexi or Mega regions in SL seem unlikely to me. One of the Lab’s goals is to increase the population a region can carry. I suspect that is going to require some significant change and I believe those changes would have a major impact on how Mega regions would work. While I may be wrong, I see Mega regions being way down the road, if ever.

      I’m not sure which ‘it’ leaves the bad taste. For me, I see our biggest problem being how poorly a vocal part of the community is handling the changes at the Lab.

      • “it” = LightShare / WindLight is opensource as is OpenSim and yes while the platforms differ they are not that different. The viewer patches exist and are out there and also not a massive nasty. Parcel WindLight is something we all started asking for & discussing as soon as WindLight became available, LL did not bother to consider a full environment solution until well after OpenSim went ahead and implemented it because it not only made sense, it is used extensively.

        Re mega regions…. refer to https://jira.secondlife.com/browse/SVC-7583

        Completely agree that the culture that has evolved @ LL in regards to the open source community and that benefits no one which is a genuine shame that so many lose out as a result. Unfortunately that also has a direct impact on the overall community by effectively removing unity from community. Henri Beauchamps of CV had an excellent & clear look at the impact of TPV, very rational & sane without all the “sky is falling” chicken little routine.

        /me admits his guilt in helping people on various platforms and trying to get discussion going in ways to be of benefit to all.

        • Thanks for JIRA ID. I don’t understand the high JIRA number and the 2009 creation date…

          For a 2009 dated item to not yet be touched in some way by a Linden suggests there is some internal decision process at work.

          I think the change will be complex and lots of work. That usually mean it goes to the bottom of the priority list.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *