[opensource-dev] The Plan for Snowglobe
Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
oz at lindenlab.com
Fri Sep 10 12:02:41 PDT 2010
On 2010-09-10 14:30, Daniel Smith wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 10, 2010 at 9:22 AM, Oz Linden (Scott Lawrence)
> <oz at lindenlab.com <mailto:oz at lindenlab.com>> wrote:
> Eventually (and there is _no_ plan for when this will be - certainly
> longer than 3 months), it will no longer be possible for us to
> to support viewers based on the 1.x code base (including our own), and
> we'll stop.
> If this is the case, then you need to reconsider your booming Wizard
> of Oz proclamation
> “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.”
They'll probably put that quote on my tombstone :-)
Note that I did not say that we would not consider migrating specific
features from the v1 UI.
> What you are doing by that, is setting the puzzle pieces together
> which will result in quite a migration of users (and viewer
> developers) away from LL.
> An interesting note is that you have only been at LL (and apparently,
> in SL) for only 4 months. You are making a decision on something
> where 90% of the community has much more experience than you.
> The other interesting note is what Philip just said in an interview:
> From the interview with Philip, I see:
> Mitch Wagner
> "Fast, Easy, Fun" with Second Life founder Philip Rosedale
> Viewer 2 also needs to be beefed up for Second Life content
> creators, who nearly universally criticize the software as a giant
> step backward from the previous version. "We'll rapidly make the
> Viewer 2 codebase have the capabilities that everybody wants,"
> Rosedale said.
> from: http://blogs.computerworld.com/16905/second_life
What I said and what Philip said are not in conflict... we do understand
that we have a lot of UI work to do in v2, and we're doing it. He was
focusing on one aspect of that work, but there are many others (we've
got quite a catalogue in our Backlog).
The most important reasons that we don't have a plan to deprecate the
1.x viewers are:
* We don't need to yet - the number of SL features that they don't
support is still acceptably small
* We know that the UI issues for v1 users are still much too serious
We know that we've got to solve the second problem before the missing
feature support in v1 viewers becomes too big a problem.
The bottom line is that we can't afford to develop two families of
viewers, so we have to stop investing in v1 completely (and yes, even
just keeping it up and building requires significant work) so that we
can fix v2 faster.
I hope that we can change the traffic on this list to be more focused on
consideration of the actual work to be done, and how we can collectively
do it best, and spend a bit less time on Pronouncements Of Doom and
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the opensource-dev