Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs obfuscation

[Ann Otoole]

Here is what some of the people on this list come across like:

Let's say you have a town full of people worried about terrorists making home made bombs. 
Here comes a resident yelling obscenities at them, calling them stupid, yelling that there is nothing that can be done about it, and handing out flyers with instructions on how to make fertilizer bombs.
Doesn't matter if it is right or wrong the behavior is antisocial and unacceptable.

Thats the mentality I see going on. The professional nature of this list has vanished. I think LL needs to clean this list up and deal with it. 
The number of people causing problems is small and finite and I don't see much code or ideas coming from them.

This list is an LL list and as such should fall under the TOS/CS and abusive behavior should be rewarded with suspensions from Secondlife and if it continues then the SL accounts be revoked.
IMHO anyway.

If obfuscation happens to be part of a new way to manage cache so more can be stored and the performance be improved then I'm all for it. 
However, the cache performance is what counts. 
The number of bytes being transferred is becoming critical. 
And may soon become very expensive.

Can we return to finding ways to improve the cache now?


----- Original Message ----
From: Gordon Wendt <GordonWendt at gmail.com>
To: Second Life Developer Mailing List <sldev at lists.secondlife.com>
Sent: Monday, June 9, 2008 10:16:55 PM
Subject: Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs obfuscation

Irrational statements like what I keep seeing on this list are exactly why an idiotic proposal like SVC-1919 was passed to remove UUID information from the viewer, just because things like showing a texture UUID in the GUI can be used for nefarious purposes wasn't and isn't a reason to cripple the client, doubly so when it can be easily undone.  That's why there are no copies of Mozilla Firefox (an open source web browser for those who don't know) without right shift save image functionality or without the option to view web page source.  You don't see people whining and moaning about their web page source being publicly available yet people want SL to be crippled in the same way they'd want a web browser to be crippled.

-G.W.


On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 9:57 PM, Lawson English <lenglish5 at cox.net> wrote:

 
Eh, the middle way is best, I think.

Don't support things against the TOS via the SL viewer GUI, at the very least. Beyond that, minor obfuscation that requires a potential thief to have more technical understanding of what is going on than merely accessing things via the standard MacOS/WIndows file GUI should be sufficient to offer legal protection to content creators. Any protection BEOND that, will require more work on the content creator. A 3rd party solution to grab textures as they are uploaded and run them through signature/watermarking before forwarding them to LL, might be an option. No doubt there are others, but for content creators, even slight obfuscation should offer legal protection. No obfuscation whatsoever, might not.

In my non-legal view, of course.


Lawson



      
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080609/85048a26/attachment.htm