Is Linden Lab abandoning Second Life?

[Tytia Atheria]

Read for yourself, don' forget the comments at the bottom. Very insightful.

 

http://www.hypergridbusiness.com/2014/06/is-linden-lab-abandoning-second-life/

[Sassy Romano]

Article dated 30th June.  This is old news, there are already many threads that have discussed this and continue to do so.

[Tytia Atheria]

I realize that just sharing factual news. Wondering why SL has increasingly become so unstable? This initial info sort of clears that up.

[Dresden Ceriano]

---

Tytia wrote:

I realize that just sharing factual news. Wondering why SL has increasingly become so unstable? This initial info sort of clears that up.

---

SL hasn't become any more unstable than it ever has been.

...Dres (Its users are another story entirely.)

[Ethan Paslong]

you call SL getting more unstable?... how long have you been here?

most instability is user's end, bad connections or poor routers and some trying ultra settings on a onboard 512 mb graphics.

 

seeing the improvement since i am inworld it's not comparable....never been so stable as past few years

[bigmoe Whitfield]

Fearmongering, some have totally mistaken what the lab is doing as "OMFG THE SKY IS FALLING"  they wont take time to read the articles. if they would get on places ebbe has been, here and slu, they would see SL is not failing,  it's stable, they have a small team still working on it.  but nobody wants to hear that, they just want to believe some random obsecure article that says "OMFG SL IS DYING, ABANDON ALL HOPE"

 

I really wish this would quit and people would find correct information.  

[Coby Foden]

- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -

Yay! 

  :matte-motes-asleep-2:

[Madelaine McMasters]

LL is hanging in there, it's the residents who've slowly been abandoning SL.

[Amethyst Jetaime]

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

I don't think it makes any more sense to ignore the signs that SL is not healthy than to think it's about to die. That said, there's not much to do but enjoy the band and ignore the water. It's not like we won't have rowboats.

[Perrie Juran]

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

 

---

Maybe they hit Terminal Velocity.  Or the retro rockets have been firing emough to slow the descent.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

 

---

Maybe they hit Terminal Velocity.  Or the retro rockets have been firing emough to slow the descent.

---

Falling at terminal velocity is often... terminal.

If Ebbe thought SL was seaworthy, would he be designing a new ark?

We have lifeboats, LL doesn't.

 

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

 

---

Maybe they hit Terminal Velocity.  Or the retro rockets have been firing emough to slow the descent.

---

Falling at terminal velocity is often... terminal.

If Ebbe thought SL was seaworthy, would he be designing a new ark?

We have lifeboats, LL doesn't.

 

---

Well, they haven't cried "abandon ship."

At least not yet.

And they still are doing things to make her more sea worthy.  Although I suspect the approval of some if not all projects is being based in whole or in part on their potential benefit to the extraterrestrial vehicle they are building.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Tytia wrote:

I realize that just sharing factual news.

<snip>

---

BTW, I had meant to but never did comment on this. 

While Hypergrid does report on some facts it is still an opinionated news service.

"As I’ve repeatedly said before, my vision for the metaverse is something like the Web, with many virtual worlds, running on a variety of server software both open source and proprietary, all interoperable with one another."

That is personal opinion, not fact, and her reporting is always colored by this.

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

 

---

Maybe they hit Terminal Velocity.  Or the retro rockets have been firing emough to slow the descent.

---

Falling at terminal velocity is often... terminal.

If Ebbe thought SL was seaworthy, would he be designing a new ark?

We have lifeboats, LL doesn't.

 

---

Well, they haven't cried "abandon ship."

At least not yet.

And they still are doing things to make her more sea worthy.  Although I suspect the approval of some if not all projects is being based in whole or in part on their potential benefit to the extraterrestrial vehicle they are building.

---

Nor am I crying "abandon ship". If you extrapolate the slow concurrency decline, you see we've got time to enjoy what we have while LL and others build new things to lure us away. And it would be pretty neat if whatever lured us away did so in the blink of an eye because it was that good.

But... I do wonder if those of us who love SL are so atypical that a wildly successful new world will not lure us.

[Perrie Juran]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Perrie Juran wrote:

 

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

The sky has been falling since I got here in 2006. 

---

Claims to that effect have been around since 2006, often with predictions for nearly immediate doom.

The reality is that SL has been sinking, not falling, since 2009. Falls (of the sky sort) generally evoke the idea of acceleration, and there's no evidence of that in the SL concurrency graph. It's interesting to ponder that graph's apparent insensitivity to all the things that were expected to either kill or save SL over the last five years.

 

---

Maybe they hit Terminal Velocity.  Or the retro rockets have been firing emough to slow the descent.

---

Falling at terminal velocity is often... terminal.

If Ebbe thought SL was seaworthy, would he be designing a new ark?

We have lifeboats, LL doesn't.

 

---

Well, they haven't cried "abandon ship."

At least not yet.

And they still are doing things to make her more sea worthy.  Although I suspect the approval of some if not all projects is being based in whole or in part on their potential benefit to the extraterrestrial vehicle they are building.

---

Nor am I crying "abandon ship". If you extrapolate the slow concurrency decline, you see we've got time to enjoy what we have while LL and others build new things to lure us away. And it would be pretty neat if whatever lured us away did so in the blink of an eye because it was that good.

But... I do wonder if those of us who love SL are so atypical that a wildly successful new world will not lure us.

---

To be clear, it is not SL (and especially not LL) that I am specifically drawn to. 

My interest is Virtual Worlds and right now for me SL is the best thing available. (Note, I said "for me.")

If something came along that I felt was a better offering, while nostalgia might be a big hold back for me, I wouldn't be above jumping Ship.