[sldev] Re: SLDev Digest, Vol 18, Issue 66

[JB Kraft]

On Tue, Jun 10, 2008 at 8:11 AM, Random Unsung <ravenglassrentals at yahoo.com>
wrote:

> Second Life is not a web browser. It is a world. It is a world with an
> economy based on intellectual property and real property rights. If you want
> a web browser, go outside to the Internet; if you want a world with people
> in it, and not merely a abstract platformist sandbox, you will have to
> accommodate the needs of non-scripters and non-coders who make up the
> business people supporting the costs of this platform and making a profit
> for the platform providers.
>
> The concept that right-clicking thereby enables stealing of proprietary
> images and codes everywhere else on the Internet is false, and a tendentious
> reading along the extremist Stallmanite lines.
>
> Any discussion of obfuscation should be reviewed on its merits, in good
> faith, both to determine whether it assists in the matter of copyright theft
> and preserving the integrity of the original permissions system, and also
> with a view to functionality and scaling.
>
> *sldev-request at lists.secondlife.com* wrote:
>
> Send SLDev mailing list submissions to
> sldev at lists.secondlife.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> /index.html
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> sldev-request at lists.secondlife.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> sldev-owner at lists.secondlife.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of SLDev digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
> 1. Re: Shadow Patch? (Argent Stonecutter)
> 2. Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation (Gordon Wendt)
> 3. Re: Shadow Patch? (Soft)
> 4. Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation (Ann Otoole)
> 5. Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation (Gordon Wendt)
> 6. Re: Cache politics: performance vs obfuscation (Michael Schlenker)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:16:52 -0500
> From: Argent Stonecutter
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Shadow Patch?
> To: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> Message-ID: <82A33358-D41B-4491-A942-EB4B02DB1901 at gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; delsp=yes; format=flowed
>
> On 2008-06-09, at 18:23, SignpostMarv Martin wrote:
> > I believe it refers to http://www.massively.com/2008/05/29/high-end-
> > graphics-features-planned-for-second-life/
>
> I don't think that will make it into RC10, or 1.21, or 1.22, ...
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:16:55 -0400
> From: "Gordon Wendt"
> Subject: Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation
> To: "Second Life Developer Mailing List"
> Message-ID:
> <493033a70806091916i6715e064kfd0efdd2045be2d2 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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 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/20080609/3e7c16db/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 21:22:42 -0500
> From: Soft
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Shadow Patch?
> To: "Brandon Husbands"
> Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> Message-ID:
>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
>
> On Mon, Jun 9, 2008 at 4:34 PM, Brandon Husbands wrote:
> > http://www.megafileupload.com/en/file/68953/SecondLifeShadows-zip.html
> >
> > Is this going to make it into rc10?
>
> That's a long-term feature. No.
>
> The intent of the RC branch is that subsequent RCs at a given version
> number contain bug fixes only.
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 20:08:01 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Ann Otoole
> Subject: Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation
> To: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> Message-ID: <988916.32450.qm at web59107.mail.re1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> 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
> To: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> 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 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-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 5
> Date: Mon, 9 Jun 2008 23:22:32 -0400
> From: "Gordon Wendt"
> Subject: Re: Hubris, was Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs
> obfuscation
> To: "Second Life Developer Mailing List"
> Message-ID:
> <493033a70806092022x6fd8aca1ie241ea72a6d4e72 at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Apologies to Ann for the double post since gmail at least automatically
> wants to send it directly to whoever sent the original message to the list.
>
>
> If you would like to skip to my ontopic comments on this conversation
> please
> skip to the second paragraph.
>
> @Ann Ironically you just displayed the same behavior you said should be
> banned and I take great offense at you comparing people who disagree with
> you on the topic of obsfucating information to terrorists. Other than your
> post here attacking other resident's directly I don't see any personal
> attacks just attacks on each other's arguments which is the nature of such
> discourse when not everybody agrees. Incidentally it seems so far that LL
> knows that off topic conversations and arguments go on in the list and as
> long as the main conversation goes along and as long as they are quick and
> not overly disruptive these arguments seem to be overlooked... this is just
> from my experience so far and Rob and the other list admins take action as
> they see fit without much regard to precedent.
>
> On the topic of the issue though since this really is getting off topic I'm
> sure there is some middleground in terms of performance but it seems like
> high performance would require changing the fundamental way that images are
> sent, recieved, and dealt with by the server and client respectively
> although I'd be interested if LL or anyone else has data on where the
> slowest parts of the process are since I'm not sure we know for sure that
> encoding is where the bottleneck is although that is unfortunately the only
> part that can really be directly seen except by LL since we don't know what
> goes on serverside.
>
> -G.W.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL:
> http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080609/e59cc824/attachment-0001.htm
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 6
> Date: Tue, 10 Jun 2008 08:00:48 +0200
> From: Michael Schlenker
> Subject: Re: [sldev] Cache politics: performance vs obfuscation
> To: Argent Stonecutter
> Cc: Second Life Developer Mailing List
> Message-ID: <484E1890.1080604 at uni-oldenburg.de>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1; format=flowed
>
> Argent Stonecutter schrieb:
> > On 2008-06-09, at 02:22, Dale Mahalko wrote:
> >> A move to a local MySQL database
> >
> > God no.
> >
> > sqlite, please. Without all the MySQL "I'm pretending to be a real
> > database engine" overhead.
>
> SQLites pretty good for some stuff, but caching blob data is not one of
> it due to the required frequent fsync() calls needed to maintain
> transactions. (just see the current discussion around Firefox 3 being
> very slow on Ubuntu).
>
> But MySQL is an even worse idea...
>
> I had to write a heavily parallel (targeting some 1000 parallel writing
> threads) blob storage system for a different application and using
> SQLite, even only for storing the metadata leads to heavy lock
> contention and made the system far less scalable. Current filesystems
> like NTFS or ext3 are pretty okay for storing files and metadata, they
> are made for that kind of usecase..., its even faster to do a stat() on
> disk than to lookup stuff in sqlite in most cases.
>
> Michael
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> SLDev mailing list
> SLDev at lists.secondlife.com
> /index.html
>
>
> End of SLDev Digest, Vol 18, Issue 66
> *************************************
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Click here to unsubscribe or manage your list subscription:
> /index.html
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://lists.secondlife.com/pipermail/sldev/attachments/20080610/3caa0ca8/attachment-0001.htm