Re: [mmox] Creating walled gardens considered harmful

[Jon Watte <[e-mail]>]

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