Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Charles Krinke <[e-mail]>]

Last week, I receive an IM while inworld on OSGrid testing some scripts and
it came from an iPhone. This is the video showing this IM as it occurred.

http://www.techcrunch.com/2009/03/22/sparkle-the-iphone-gets-its-first-virtual-world-and-its-3d/

So, Genkii has gone ahead with some interop from the iPhone viewpoint and is
moving forward.

As Croquet, Wonderland and others can chat with us here on this group, we
can increase the activity of this interop and bootstrap implementations as
they come online and keep MMOX in the mainstream if we wish.

That is our challenge.

Not to bemoan how the world is, but rather, to embrace the technology as it
evolves and stay abreast of it and participate in its evolution.

Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director

On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 9:57 AM, Morgaine <[e-mail]>wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>>
>> The question is: would you want to work on a standard, if you knew that
>> the standard would only be adopted by 3 out of 50 virtual world platforms in
>> the world?
>>
>>
> We're not working on a standard for 3/50.  Instead, we're placing the
> requirements of the 50 platforms (or as many as we can) into the problem
> space, and analysing each one separately into components so that we can
> either find commonalities or else keep the requirements disjoint.  And then,
> once we see the whole problem space as a set of necessary component
> requirements, we can finally synthesize solutions that meet 50/50, or at
> least a high number.
>
>
> Morgaine.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Sat, Mar 28, 2009 at 5:18 PM, Jon Watte <[e-mail]> wrote:
>
>> Charles Krinke wrote:
>>
>>> It just seems to me that whether virtual world A is a better or worse
>>> architecture then virtual world B is not moving us forward. So, lets try to
>>> concentrate on the similarities and find ways to move forward.
>>>
>>
>> I don't think anyone is proposing that any particular virtual world is
>> better or worse. It's a question of impedance matching, not capability.
>>
>> The question is: would you want to work on a standard, if you knew that
>> the standard would only be adopted by 3 out of 50 virtual world platforms in
>> the world?
>>
>> For a standard to be adopted by a platform, that standard has to provide
>> real and concrete benefits to the users of that platform. (If the platform
>> is something done for the fun of it, then the concrete benefit might be the
>> enjoyment of implementing the standard, but most platform vendors are not in
>> that position).
>>
>> I have yet to see a use case that shows that implementing the three points
>> that were isolated would provide any real and concrete benefit to users of
>> worlds other than Open Sim / Second Life. Assuming there is such a benefit,
>> then coming up with a use case tied to the technology can't be that hard,
>> can it? And, if it is, then what is the benefit of working on that standard?
>>
>> Or are you suggesting that vendors should implement a standard on faith,
>> as an investment, that there will, sometime in the future, maybe be some
>> concrete benefit to the users?
>>
>> I don't want to talk about technology until I undestand what purpose that
>> technology serves the users of that technology.
>>
>> Sincerely,
>>
>> jw
>>
>>
>


-- 
Charles Krinke
OpenSim Core Developer
OSGrid Director