Tuesday, September 13, 2016

Metaverse Politics

From: A Hypergrid Business article.

I have been trying to find my way to commenting on this since he posted it. On the one hand a reply on the HGB site might generate more responses or if only mostly read by lurkers. And that is fine.

I wouldn't have any control on who responds, which, frankly, almost always adds drama, usually by new names with no to little Disqus history or having it set to private so others can't try to develop a better understanding of where they are coming from. Or those whose agenda is quite clear to me, if not by others.

Then there is the people who appear to have some mental disability, of the kind where they feel it is ok to state off the wall disinformation, and the like. I feel a sadness towards them but I just don't understand it.

But it tends to divert attention away from having any kind of civilized discussion or debate. Mostly I have just given up there trying to bring it back, it is mostly an exercise in futility.

On the other hand, here in my blog, if someone comments in some off the wall way, I can just delete and say not a word of it, or I can close comments or I can delete the entire post which = no drama at all.

And there is the fact that I really don't think anything I say has much relative importance, especially as I think little I say has much importance in my life anymore.

Mostly I do these type missives to help the day go by more quickly, and just for myself to get something off my mind.

It's not that I prefer censoring, because I most decidedly don't, but that I am just completely over being interested in the frass (cockroach leavings) and a couple of weeks or so back I decided just to go ahead and mute/block/whatever people who have shown a history of nonsense...I could really care less and it has disturbed my peace for far too long, as well as serve to partially divert my primary interests in the Hyperverse.

I keep a light hand on that sort of censoring and it will only ever be just a few people.

I just don't have the energy to spare anymore, life throws those curves quite often.

However, though this isn't of primary concern to me, I do still tend towards the idea of knowing, rather than not knowing...all I have really done is decide that knowing some things are just less relevant to my free time/passing time.

I also tend towards a bit of a shy attitude, how I am in real life, although I am sure some others see my words differently, good or bad, I see that as only an example of the lack of people who want to speak out, in any kind of numbers in our little slice of the Internet.

I don't mind speaking out but I need to moderate that as best I can. Writing up a blog page allows me to do so in my own time without interruptions, which I much prefer.

As can be read below, Doug's comment, and his other comments on this article, shows, at the very least, his willingness to speak forthrightly and as honestly as he can. I like that kind of person, as a rule.

From what little I have read I think he is also a guileless man. Perhaps time will allow me to reconsider, who knows, really. I think it is overall a good thing.

I know this because I used to be like that.

The thing about guileless people, however, is that they can be easily manipulated by those people a guileless person chooses to believe. He wants to see the good in people without being totally aware that the negative side of some people find uses for such people.

They might even choose to mix in some basic truths and without the basic human cautions they might even feel they are a crusader for truth, justice, and The American Way along with some apple pie.

He has certainly made of himself a champion for inworldz. Otherwise he could just discuss his MOSES project.

To my eyes, it has become increasingly obvious that he is buying into the whole Inworldz culture. A culture that is based upon deception, disinformation and white lies, and in some cases there have been outright lies.

Most of what he is saying in this comment, and others, is the talking points that inwz supporters have always said, stated differently.

I have always seen it as arrogance in its purest form, a sort of patronizing feeling towards others who don't agree with them or see things differently.

As I said, I think he is a guileless man and so he won't really see this of himself, and certainly of others with whom he trusts and believes.

I don't have the will, desire, or extra energy to do much to try and dissuade him, if even in parts, so this blog page and potential comments will serve to do that. In life there are various kinds of importance to people, much that is really frivolous and unworthy of civilized people to dwell much on...and this is such with me. Of value enough to stage a debate or a civilized argument, but not any more.

Perhaps it is Doug who needs to innovate and change.

So, in proper debate form, I will answer and counter some of his points, if not all. He can defend his statements if he wants to, or not, I don't need that to say what I want to say anyway.

If anything, perhaps this gives some food for thought, even if to one other person.

In his first paragraph Doug asseverates that not only is the Halcyon code superior to that of core Opensim, but that the way Inworldz forked from core was the best way.

There are two answers I feel pertinent to this. One is that if the inworldz owners and tech team had in fact stayed with core and worked through any obstacles to teamwork, we all would be in a much better place to promote and show others what is so cool and real and fun about it.

Opensim would have been more well situated, in a "speak as one voice" way and the constant corruptions inherent in the commercial aspects of opensim would tend towards more of a less corrupting influence than is the case now.

It is not core Opensim devs who are to blame here, it is the inworldz owners and devs. Opensim core was already in place, and in fact inworldz benefitted on their basic worth, without which there would not even be an inworldz...or maybe none of this opensim niche platform.

Personally, I think that arrogant attitude I have personally seen was the root of the problem. A little less arrogance and a little more teamwork spirit would have been good for us all, rather than what actually has occurred, a senseless and meaningless round and round discussion and drama filled space.

I think Doug, for whatever reason, has chosen to ignore this basic fact. He prefers to think the core Opensim developers are at fault, and in several regards. This is, of course, in line with the inworldz teams asseverations.

I think Doug is missing a historical perspective that has only been influenced by one mindset.

In his second paragraph Doug states personal knowledge that Varregion are not as useful as the inworldz code done to ease classic region size (256x256) crossings.

From his perspective I am sure this is so.

But he fails to make the leap to the varregion being one of the features that Opensim has added, and which inworldz did not have, for they had already been years in optimizing the classic region crossing work and had forked from core at version .65.

I propose that this is a bit narrow minded. Varregions show it is possible to innovate and spark the ideas of change and enlightenment...I propose that 14 year old (or whenever SL started) technical ideas are, by definition, outdated. We can all point to the technical increases in computers and computing as a simple and clear statement to this.

And we all know Sansar and Hifidelity are on the horizon promising even more technical leaps in innovation.

In his third paragraph Doug wants us to believe hypergridding is only a "proof of concept" and that this feature is an example of "VHS versus Betamax". Inworldz being the VHS, one would assume.

I think the opposite is true. The hypergrid protocol code is also, along with varregions, a feature that brings thousands of hypergrid enabled places, and their people, together as one big family if I might be so bold to say (but others have said the same).

Without the hypergrid we would be just like (basically) SL and the much smaller closed commercial grids based upon OpenSim code. Why would something that frees people be considered negatively in any way? Why would something that allows for cross cultural collaborations on a scale any closed grid, including SL, can even imagine?

I can only assume that Doug's (MOSES) team likes the inworldz team so much that something so positive could be called anything other than a method by which people can socialize, and on a scale that completely overwhelms the lack of it in any closed grid.

Yes, I can see from a coding standpoint, he could think such...but I don't really see things in 1 and 0s, I see people. But even in 1 and 0s we all know there are glitches of one form or another that either don't get fixed or do...or we make do with how it is.

Maybe that should be the major part of the discourse. The hypergrid and the ability for people to move about, visit, explore, collaborate is not a thing of 1 and 0s, it is one of minds and hearts. Maybe these code type people simply cannot grasp what this means.

Maybe they just don't understand the social variety core Opensim allows us. Maybe they don't understand that most, the majority even, of people don't especially care if someone writes "tighter code". Maybe they just want to do something with their time, and if it works then it works, and that is the happy part, the fun part.

And lastly, why the hard sell, all of a sudden? Most of us are already aware of the main issues that cause discontentment. We don't really fall for some kind of Fuller Brush sales pitch, ya know? There are very smart minds who dwell in the core opensimulator places.

Perhaps they don't see a time when there are a bunch of over-commercialized little inworldz grids all over the place? And perhaps they wonder why anyone would?

Perhaps it is they who have found the truth of things, perhaps some much smaller SL clones are really wrong. Time will tell of course.

Perhaps he should take the time to visit with, and talk to, various people in our open spaces. Try Fest-Avi 2016 and maybe drop by my region in Metropolis, yes we can, take a copy of all the VisionZ issues, and read them.

In his last paragraph he states, "OpenSim is dangerously close to turning into the AOL of virtual worlds. Embrace innovation and change." I see it the other way. Inworldz is far from embracing innovation that core opensim is doing. Inworldz was behind core in some important areas and only just recently got much closer to parity.

Perhaps he will change his mind about some things, or, perhaps not.

I don't usually put this much effort out for things that don't relate to my basic survival in life. So I hope this missive meets with approval, if only to one other person.


"Douglas Maxwell • 21 hours ago
Since we are talking about roadmaps and future direction for OpenSimulator, I'll take the opportunity to discuss our motivations to work with the Halcyon code. There seems to be a misconception that since the creators of InWorldz forked a long time ago, the technology must be out of date or deficient. This is *not* the case. I'd like to state, for the record, that based on my team's review of the Halcyon code: it is in many ways superior to the current core Open Simulator code. They identified and fixed some major deficiencies that we found with the core OS code - and they did it years before our efforts. Since there was a disagreement on how to address these deficiencies with the core OS developers, the Halcyon team made the decision to fork and innovate in parallel.

Why isn't varegion support in Halcyon? They don't need it. They did a brilliant job of handling inter-simulator communications and they support inter-simulator script handling. Region crossing is smooth and seamless, even with a squad of 9 soldiers and 2 course managers crossing simultaneously. We've tested this using real training material, at a real training site, using real soldiers (see my postings at LinkedIn for more information: http://goo.gl/xjR053 ). Aggregation of large numbers of sims to create a large terrain space spreads the computational and memory loads across multiple processors, thus promoting horizontal scalability. The only way to get more performance out of a varegion is to get a better computer, aka vertical scalability. Varegions often exhibit unpredictable and unstable behaviors, causing us to abandon them in field use. In fact, after working with the Halcyon code, we wrote software that slices up varegions and turns them back into regular regions!

Why isn't hypergrid technology supported in Halcyon? What Crista did was amazing and I applaud her effort to make a "proof of concept" technology that links disparate grids. Now what? We need to make it safe and secure to use. The Halcyon developers know that InWorldz economy is dependent on their ability to keep it secured. Whatever the solution ends up being in a practical application of hypergrids, it won't look much like the current specification. I fear that we are in a VHS versus Betamax situation here.

Some of you are calling for a "wait and see" stance for our work so you can then crowdfund some kind of backport of our work to core OpenSimulator. I don't believe this will work out for two key reasons. 1) History has shown that the core developers have a difficult time with large code contributions from outside contributors and 2) what we are producing may be so foreign to the original code that porting may not be technically feasible.

Currently the core OS code is over 1 million lines of code. The Halcyon code base has the same basic functionality, a better physics engine, support for Cassandra databases, a better scripting engine and online grid tools - with roughly 1/10th as many lines of code. What the InWorldz team did was impressive. It is tight and efficient.

Alan Kay - "The best way to predict the future is to invent it."

Folks, don't wait. You are influencers, either through your voices or direct contributions. We have already had people contact us and begin helping. OpenSim is dangerously close to turning into the AOL of virtual worlds. Embrace innovation and change."

No comments:

Post a Comment