Jump to content

Why I consider "path finding" useless in SL, and what do people use it for?


Mircea Lobo
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3200 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Recommended Posts


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

>> "A Second Life/ OS Grid server is not a web page - period. This forum? It's a web page. SL/OSG servers? No - they're far more like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server."

 

I am getting somewhat tired of people misquoting me and then refuting those misquotes as if they had anything to do with me. This is what I actually said:

 

"Technically, an OpenSim grid is a website"

Since you wish to be pedantic about it, Solar did write 'web page' instead of 'website', but I didn't get it wrong when I told you that you were wrong about an OS grid being a website. Also, Solar's mistake was marginal whereas your misquotes and inventions were huge.

And also since you wits to be pedantic, what you said ("Technically, an OpenSim grid is a website") is absolutely wrong. It isn't a website "technically" or in any other way. I already told you that so you should know. You could call it an 'internet site' and be correct, although 'internet site' isn't a phrase that anyone uses. But it's not a website. Did you do the research I suggested, and find out what the web is and what the internet is? They are very different.

You really should stop digging your hole.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 287
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic


Phil Deakins wrote:

And also since you wits to be pedantic, what you said ("
Technically, an OpenSim grid is a website
") is
absolutely
wrong. It isn't a website "technically" or in any other way. I already told you that so you should know. You could call it an 'internet site' and be correct, although 'internet site' isn't a phrase that anyone uses. But it's not a website. Did you do the research I suggested, and find out what the web is and what the internet is? They are very different.

You want me to be pedantic? OK, let's be pedantic. Here's my research:

From Wikipedia:

"The terms Internet and World Wide Web are often used in everyday speech without much distinction. However, the Internet and the World Wide Web are not one and the same. The Internet is a global system of interconnected computer networks. In contrast, the Web is one of the services that runs on the Internet. It is a collection of text documents and other resources, linked by hyperlinks and URLs, usually accessed by web browsers from web servers. In short, the Web can be thought of as an application "running" on the Internet."

From opensimulator.org:

"The hypergrid is an extension to opensim that allows you to link your opensim to other opensims on the internet, and that supports seamless agent transfers among those opensims. It can be used both in standalone mode and in grid mode. The hypergrid is effectively supporting the emergence of a Web of virtual worlds.

The basic idea for the hypergrid is that region/grid administrations can place hyperlinks on their map to hypergrided regions run by others. Once those hyperlinks are established, users interact with those regions in exactly the same way as they interact with local regions. Specifically, users can choose to teleport there. Once the user reaches the region behind the hyperlink, she is automatically interacting with a different virtual world without having to logout from the world where she came from, and while still having access to her inventory."

From Wikipedia:

"Hypertext is text displayed on a computer display or other electronic device with references (hyperlinks) to other text that the reader can immediately access, usually by a mouse click, keypress sequence or by touching the screen. Apart from text, hypertext is sometimes used to describe tables, images and other presentational content forms with hyperlinks. Hypertext is the underlying concept defining the structure of the World Wide Web."

The hypergrid, dear Mr. Deakins, is a hyperlinked web of virtual worlds. Its content comes in the form of 3D spaces ("regions"). Embedded in these spaces are objects, images, sounds, text, videos, HTML pages, plugins, and hyperlinks to other spaces. There is a browser ("viewer"), there is a site map ("world map"), each location has a URL. The region is a document, the grid is a web site, the hypergrid is the web. Quod erat demonstrandum.

I think you are confused because you believe the web must be text. There is no such requirement. The web is all about hyperlinked presentation of content, regardless of form. It doesn't require HTTP, it doesn't require HTML. It doesn't have to be 2D. The web actually existed prior to the first web browser, and early web browsers would be unable to handle what we call "the web" today. The web is a moving target, and its evolution is the result of people's ability to think outside the box (or rather: outside the "page", in our case).

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

>> "A Second Life/ OS Grid server is not a web page - period. This forum? It's a web page. SL/OSG servers? No - they're far more like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server."

 

I am getting somewhat tired of people misquoting me and then refuting those misquotes as if they had anything to do with me. This is what I actually said:

 

"Technically, an OpenSim grid is a website"

 

I said "technically," not "pedantically." The fact that not all of its formats and protocols are W3C-approved doesn't matter. Otherwise most webcasts wouldn't be WEBcasts. You got that?

 

Here's why OpenSim is not like a WoW/MMO/Online Game/Content Distribution server:

 

1. There is no game, no inherent purpose or goal.

 

2. There are no shards. Each place is unique and can be referenced by a globally unique URL (opensim://host:port/region/x/y/z/).

 

3. The content is persistent but not static. The world is streamed and cached, not downloaded in advance.

 

4. There are no technical barriers between grids. The same "browser" is used for all of them. Avatars can teleport from one grid to another. Items from one grid can be rezzed on another. Instant messages can be sent from one grid to another.

 

5. The grids are hyperlinked. Regions of one grid can appear on the map of another. It is possible to link from web pages to grid locations and back.

 

6. There is a sense of identity. I am the same avatar wherever I teleport. My hypergrid ID is unique like an email address. My inventory is persistent. Try traveling from WoW to SWTOR to see what I mean.

 

7. The platform is not proprietary. Its formats and protocols are open and "de facto" standardized. There is no limit to its scale. It can't be shut down.

 

8. The platform is decentralized. No one will ever know exactly how large the hypergrid is. You can run a grid behind a firewall and enjoy total privacy.

 

9. The software is cross-platform. Both the server and the client run on Linux. Turning a LAMP server into a LOM server is a matter of minutes.

And I - and all others that actually matter here - are getting tired of you being wilfully obtuse.

You are wrong - period and end of the discussion. Your opinion here does not matter - it is in utter opposition to reality and makes so many false assumptions as to be utterly laughable.

Come back when you can read and properly comprehend what is being said.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Solar Legion wrote:

And I - and all others that actually matter here - are getting tired of you being wilfully obtuse.

You are wrong - period and end of the discussion. Your opinion here does not matter - it is in utter opposition to reality and makes so many false assumptions as to be utterly laughable.

Come back when you can read and properly comprehend what is being said.

Aw, come on, Solar. It's so easy to show him being wrong that it's good fun. Leave him alone lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I won't quote your whole post. I'll tell you which part I'm responding to as I respond to it. That way this post won't take up too much space.

 

About your first Wikipedia section:

It's a pity you don't understand the very research that you quoted because it stated very clearly that the internet and the web are two very different things, and it states that "the Web is one of the services that runs on the Internet". Now what could another service that runs on the internet be, I wonder. Ah. I've just remembered a couple - Second Life and OpenSim grids. So SL and OS grids run on the internet but they aren't websites.

 

About your opensimulator.org section:

In a nutshell, it says that hyperlinks are placed on the map to enable jumps from one grid to another. That's the only part of it that can be the reason for you quoting it. Yes, I agree. Grids do sometimes include hyperlinks to another system that also runs on the internet - the web. When it happens a web browser opens up within the viewer window. It's not part of the grid, of course, because the grid isn't a website, but it does open up within the programme's (viewer's) window. That doesn't make the grid a website. It just means that jumps can be made from the grid to the web.

 

About your second Wikipedia section:

It is true that hyperlinks are the means of jumping between webpages and websites. In fact, it was the invention of the hyperlink that caused the web in the first place. But hyperlinks are used on more systems that use the internet than the web. They are used in SL, for instance. But using such jumps between systems does not make the grid system a website.

 

About your last paragraph:

It is true that SL uses HTML pages for some things, but that doesn't make SL a website. Heck, eBooks are often written in HTML but they aren't websites either and neither are the eReaders that we read the HTML pages on.

The viewer is not a browser. Feel free to show evidence that it is a browser if you really think it is. You haven't shown any so far.

The World Map is not a sitemap. Do you know what site map actually is? Do some research.

A URL does not make whatever is at the location a website. URLs are used to identify Resources (the R in URL) on the internet.

A region may be a document (I'm sure it's a lot more than just a document). What I do know is that a region is not a webpage. A webpage is always a document but a document is usually something other than a webpage.

You said, "The region is a document, the grid is a web site, the hypergrid is the web". Now that's really silly. I used to make my living on the web and the web that I made my living on was not a 3D world.

 


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I think you are confused because you believe the web must be text. There is no such requirement. The web is all about hyperlinked presentation of content, regardless of form. It doesn't require HTTP, it doesn't require HTML. It doesn't have to be 2D. The web actually existed prior to the first web browser, and early web browsers would be unable to handle what we call "the web" today. The web is a moving target, and its evolution is the result of people's ability to think outside the box (or rather: outside the "page", in our case).

No I don't believe that the web must be text. You are making things up for me again. The web is a system of hyperlinked websites. Websites contain content - all kinds of content. SL and OS grids are not the web kind of content. You can't get into them with a web browser. If you don't have a suitable programme on your computer, you can't into them at all. If they were websites, then they would run in a web browser.

You do have one very small but valid thought though. The hypergrid could be described as a web - of grids. But it's definitely not what you called it - the web. And grids connected to the hypergrid can never be called websites. They can be called gridsites, if you like, but never websites.

Keep digging. It's fun :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:


Solar Legion wrote:

And I - and all others that actually matter here - are getting tired of you being wilfully obtuse.

You are wrong - period and end of the discussion. Your opinion here does not matter - it is in utter opposition to reality and makes so many false assumptions as to be utterly laughable.

Come back when you can read and properly comprehend what is being said.

Aw, come on, Solar. It's so easy to show him being wrong that it's good fun. Leave him alone lol.

I don't suffer such people, Phil. You're welcome to keep on "debating" with him but .... He's proven across most forums that he has an agenda. An agenda he harms far more than he helps ... and he refuses to see this,

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "He's proven across most forums that he has an agenda."

 

"Across most forums" is kind of a stretch since there is only one other SL-related forum where I had the opportunity to "prove my agenda."

 

I remember once in that other forum there was a discussion about Unity-based virtual worlds, and I said that the future of browser-based virtual worlds is not Unity but WebGL.

 

Yes, they were laughing about my open source "agenda" back then. Today they have an entire subforum dedicated to Cloud Party.

 

You see, when people are proven wrong, they rarely give credit to those who knew better. They just stop talking about it. When will you stop talking? ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> "If they were websites, then they would run in a web browser."

 

Which web browser? Chrome, Firefox, MSIE, Opera, Safari? Here's a non-exhaustive list of web standards (approved by either W3C or the Web3D Consortium) that fail to "run" in at least one of those browsers:

 

SVG, WebCGM, SMIL, WOFF, MathML, XForms, VRML, X3D.

 

The more browsers you look at, the longer this list will get. By your definition above, any site serving content in these formats is not a website.

 

Obviously the browser-centric definition of the web doesn't work. So let's look at the standards-centric definition, shall we? OpenSim viewers, I hear you say, are not browsers because they can display more than just web pages. Here's a non-exhaustive list of formats, extensions and APIs not approved by the W3C or the Web3D Consortium but supported by at least one of the above "real" browsers:

 

Adobe Flash, Microsoft Silverlight, Oracle Java, Google NaCl, Unity, WebGL, WebM, WebP, Ogg-Vorbis, Ogg-Theora.

 

From a standards-centric viewpoint, any site using these things is not a website, and any browser supporting these things is not a web browser. In fact all sites that fail HTML validation are formally not web sites.

 

So if both the browser-centric and the standards-centric definition fail, what are we left with? Majority vote? The web is what most people think it is? How about looking at the web's principles and how they may apply to virtual worlds?

 

You seem to agree that a 3D scene is a document, but you say it's not a resource. How can it be one but not the other? How can something that is viewable, downloadable, editable and locatable by URLs not be a resource? Why is a map of a 3D site's documents not a "site map?" There is no logic, no consistent line of thought in your argument. You remember the words but forgot their meaning.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

>> "He's proven across most forums that he has an agenda."

 

"Across most forums" is kind of a stretch since there is only one other SL-related forum where I had the opportunity to "prove my agenda."

 

I remember once in that other forum there was a discussion about Unity-based virtual worlds, and I said that the future of browser-based virtual worlds is not Unity but WebGL.

 

Yes, they were laughing about my open source "agenda" back then. Today they have an entire subforum dedicated to Cloud Party.

 

You see, when people are proven wrong, they rarely give credit to those who knew better. They just stop talking about it. When will you stop talking?
;)

SLU has an entire subforum devoted to Blue Mars, too.   Didn't help Blue Mars much.

The fact, to my mind, that Cristiano takes the view that there's sufficient interest  in a virtual world or platform among some SLU regulars to devote a subforum to it doesn't really tell us much about how attractive or successful the subject of the discussion is likely to be.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

>> "He's proven across most forums that he has an agenda."

 

"Across most forums" is kind of a stretch since there is only one other SL-related forum where I had the opportunity to "prove my agenda."

 

I remember once in that other forum there was a discussion about Unity-based virtual worlds, and I said that the future of browser-based virtual worlds is not Unity but WebGL.

 

Yes, they were laughing about my open source "agenda" back then. Today they have an entire subforum dedicated to Cloud Party.

 

You see, when people are proven wrong, they rarely give credit to those who knew better. They just stop talking about it. When will you stop talking?
;)

webgl is a rendering library

Unity is a game development tool

Unity can be used to make games that run PC, on phones and in a browser. networked and standalone

comparing Unity to webgl is like comparing Visual Studio to irrlicht

people start laughing when you make apple/orange comparisons like this

+

edit

i just add here so nobody else reading will get confused about what you comparing

here is Unity:

"Unity is a game development ecosystem: a powerful rendering engine fully integrated with a complete set of intuitive tools and rapid workflows to create interactive 3D content; easy multiplatform publishing; thousands of quality, ready-made assets in the Asset Store and a knowledge-sharing Community."

"Workflow: Rapidly assemble your scenes in an intuitive, extensible Editor workspace. Play, test and edit for fast iteration towards your finished game."

here is webgl:

"WebGL is a cross-platform, royalty-free web standard for a low-level 3D graphics API based on OpenGL ES 2.0, exposed through the HTML5 Canvas element as Document Object Model interfaces. Developers familiar with OpenGL ES 2.0 will recognize WebGL as a Shader-based API using GLSL, with constructs that are semantically similar to those of the underlying OpenGL ES 2.0 API"

+

can see why those familiar with both go wut wut when you make the kinda arguments you do

Link to comment
Share on other sites

>> webgl is a rendering library

 

>> Unity is a game development tool

 

No.

 

WebGL, despite the "L" in its name, is not a library but an API. It is a JavaScript API for OpenGL. OpenGL is the rendering library. WebGL makes it possible to implement game engines in pure JavaScript.

 

Unity Web Player is not a development tool but a runtime environment. It is a game engine implemented in C/C++ and wrapped in a library. It uses OpenGL or Direct3D for rendering, depending on the target platform. Unity Web Player also contains a scripting engine.

 

A comparison between apples and oranges is perfectly valid when both are used to make the same juice, e.g. browser-based viewers for virtual worlds.

 

I could go on here and explain why I consider JavaScript + WebGL preferable over Unity, but that would make your eyes glaze over. Let's just say I have an agenda, OK?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

.

lets just say that API stands for application programming interface. lets just say API is source code that allows programs and code blocks to interface with each other. source code that is contained in one or more files. contained in some structured order. say like in libraries. lets just say source code for an API can be say written in c or basic or pascal or c# or javascript or lisp or say another language. lets just say that wikipedia and microsoft and say ubuntu say this

lets say that a development tool is say like Visual Studio or Eclipse or Unity or say Cube Sauerbraten. just say

lets say that Khronos Group knew what they were saying when they write the description for WebGL

lets also say that Unity also knew what they were saying when they write the description for say Unity. and when we dl it we find that is what they say it is

+

lets just say that is no surprise that peoples eyes glaze over when you say what you say

lets also say that you actual dont have an agenda. lets say agenda used to structure coherency in proceedings

+

i just say that i put the descriptions back again here. seems like you missed them the first time. i make bold this time

here is Unity:

"Unity is a game development ecosystem: a powerful rendering engine fully integrated with a complete set of intuitive tools and rapid workflows to create interactive 3D content; easy multiplatform publishing; thousands of quality, ready-made assets in the Asset Store and a knowledge-sharing Community."

"Workflow: Rapidly assemble your scenes in an intuitive, extensible Editor workspace. Play, test and edit for fast iteration towards your finished game."

here is webgl:

"WebGL is a cross-platform, royalty-free web standard for a low-level 3D graphics API based on OpenGL ES 2.0, exposed through the HTML5 Canvas element as Document Object Model interfaces. Developers familiar with OpenGL ES 2.0 will recognize WebGL as a Shader-based API using GLSL, with constructs that are semantically similar to those of the underlying OpenGL ES 2.0 API"

.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll only quote a bit of your post here because most of it has nothing to do with what you and I are discussing. Also, others have already discussed most of what you wrote, and I hope that they're knowledge has helped you.


Masami Kuramoto wrote:


You seem to agree that a 3D scene is a document, but you say it's not a resource. How can it be one but not the other? How can something that is viewable, downloadable, editable and locatable by URLs not be a resource? Why is a map of a 3D site's documents not a "site map?" There is no logic, no consistent line of thought in your argument. You remember the words but forgot their meaning.

Your reading, and understanding of what you read, has gone awry again. Allow me to assist you...

You've been inventing things again, and writing as though I said them. I didn't say that anything is not a resource. In fact, I made the point that what can be accessed on the internet IS a resource. That's the point I made. You seem to have understood the opposite. Or is it that you preferred me to have said the opposite? Either way, you've certainly invented the opposite and put it into my mouth.

The reason I mentioned the word 'resource' (as in URL) was to point out that, the fact that something is a resource (that is accessible on the internet), does not make it a website or even in a website. A resource on the internet may or may not be a web page/website. SL is a resource but it isn't a website. An OS grid is a resource but it isn't a website. Understand now? Probably not.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

The reason I mentioned the word 'resource' (as in URL) was to point out that, the fact that something is a resource (that is accessible on the internet), does
not
make it a website or even in a website. A resource on the internet may or may not be a web page/website. SL is a resource but it isn't a website. An OS grid is a resource but it isn't a website. Understand now? Probably not.

From IETF RFC 1630 ("Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW") by Tim Berners-Lee, 1994:

This document defines the syntax used by the World-Wide Webinitiative to encode the names and addresses of objects on theInternet.  The web is considered to include objects accessed using anextendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the webitself, or to be invented in the future.  Access instructions for anindividual object under a given protocol are encoded into forms ofaddress string.  Other protocols allow the use of object names ofvarious forms.  In order to abstract the idea of a generic object,the web needs the concepts of the universal set of objects, and ofthe universal set of names or addresses of objects.

So here we have something that

  • is a document
  • is a resource with a URL scheme
  • allows embedding audio-visual content
  • supports hyperlinking

but is not part of the web according to Mr. Deakins.

The web, which calls itself "world wide" and was "considered to include objects accessed using an extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web itself, or to be invented in the future," turns out non-extendable after all. It remains flat, just like Mr. Deakins' world.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

The reason I mentioned the word 'resource' (as in URL) was to point out that, the fact that something is a resource (that is accessible on the internet), does
not
make it a website or even in a website. A resource on the internet may or may not be a web page/website. SL is a resource but it isn't a website. An OS grid is a resource but it isn't a website. Understand now? Probably not.

From IETF RFC 1630 ("Universal Resource Identifiers in WWW") by Tim Berners-Lee, 1994:
This document defines the syntax used by the World-Wide Webinitiative to encode the names and addresses of objects on theInternet.  The web is considered to include objects accessed using anextendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the webitself, or to be invented in the future.  Access instructions for anindividual object under a given protocol are encoded into forms ofaddress string.  Other protocols allow the use of object names ofvarious forms.  In order to abstract the idea of a generic object,the web needs the concepts of the universal set of objects, and ofthe universal set of names or addresses of objects.

So here we have something that
  • is a document
  • is a resource with a URL scheme
  • allows embedding audio-visual content
  • supports hyperlinking

but is not part of the web according to Mr. Deakins.

The web, which calls itself "world wide" and was "considered to include objects accessed using an extendable number of protocols, existing, invented for the web itself, or to be invented in the future," turns out non-extendable after all. It remains flat, just like Mr. Deakins' world.

And not a word of it means that Second Life, OSGrid or any other, even remotely similar system is a "web page". Further, as is your usual tactic, you have distorted what has been said to suit your own means and agenda.

Sorry sparky - reality begs to differ with you.

When you're capable of presenting an argument without distorting the other person's words ... then perhaps you'll be taken seriously. Until then - why don't you go off and enjoy that lovely little world you seem to love so much and leave everyone else alone?

You can take everyone that has "left" with you as well. Their ramblings in a forum for a bit of software they've supposedly left behnd will not be missed.

No need for further responses - you'll just try to distort anything further that is said and quite frankly, not everyone has the time or desire to feed your attention cravings.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete ditto to what Solar said to you.

I've decided that either you are really stupid or that you are someone who enjoys arguing the impossible, just for the sake of the enjoyment. I prefer to think it's the latter but I may be mistaken. So I'm going to leave you with your silly belief - that nobody has supported or agreed with.

Just one thing before I leave you though. Where is this OS or SL document that you speak of? You've held it up as proof of your argument so it's important to you. But where is it? Explain it please.

When I said that a region may be a document, I meant that it may be initially delivered to the viewer in the form of a text document, just like animations are text documents when they are uploaded to the server. I don't know what form they are in when delivered to the viewer though. It's probable that the layout of a sim is a similar document when uploaded to the server as a .raw file, but I don't know what form a sim is when delivered to the viewer. It may or may not be in the form of a document. What I feel certain of though, is that the real time sim (everything that occurs in the sim in real time) is not delivered to the viewer in the form of a document. I feel certain that real time changes are delivered in the form of small binaries. The reason I feel certain of that is because I once wrote an online multi-user graphic environment - back in the mid 90s - where the characters moves from screen to screen, and I didn't use anything that could be described as documents to pass real time changes to the viewer - not even for the initial passing of screen layouts. For speed, everything was passed in the form of binaries. Perhaps you think that all files are documents? You'd be wrong to think it but you may do.

Anyway, you can choose to answer or not, as you wish. It may go the way of most of my questions and points - ignored by you because you have no answers for them. Or you may answer. I've no idea. It just seems silly to use up any more time arguing with a person who steadfastly reduses to acknowledge reality - especially about something that doesn't matter either way. So please feel free to wrongly think of OS grids and SL as websites. It doesn't change anything either way, so it really doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

Complete ditto to what Solar said to you.

Solar misrepresented what I said. I never said "OSgrid is a web page." I said it's a website. Solar keeps confusing these things because he really has no clue what I am talking about.


I've decided that either you are really stupid or that you are someone who enjoys arguing the impossible, just for the sake of the enjoyment.

I can't deny that I am enjoying this. I've done this before, and there were people calling me stupid just like now. When I said the mesh deformer will take a long time to implement and still fail to work for a lot of meshes, some people probably thought I was stupid. When I said WebGL could be used to make truly web-based (rather than just browser-based, as with Unity) virtual worlds, some people probably thought I was stupid.

I get the enjoyment out of being proven right later.


I prefer to think it's the latter but I may be mistaken. So I'm going to leave you with your silly belief - that nobody has supported or agreed with.

Since you failed to prove that my definition of the web is wrong, I'd rather say that only three people disagreed with it. I recommend looking at Tim Berners-Lee's original proposal to CERN, written in 1989. It contains a list of requirements that the proposed world wide web should meet. If you go through that list, you will find out that the hypergrid (which Second Life is _not_ part of) fulfills most of them.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the hypergrid protocol is good enough to become a W3C recommendation. A grid is formally not a website. But technically it is, because it is pretty much in line with what Tim Berners-Lee had in mind for his web: remotely accessible, platform-independent, decentralized (this is where Second Life fails), merging existing data and formats, hyperlinked, featuring bells and whistles, dynamic.


Just one thing before I leave you though. Where is this OS or SL document that you speak of? You've held it up as proof of your argument so it's important to you. But where is it? Explain it please.

Each region on a grid is an independent unit of information. Like any other 3D scene, a region is basically a scene graph, i.e. a tree-like hierarchy of objects. Scene graphs can be encoded as XML documents, using markup languages like VRML, X3D, or COLLADA. The process of loading a region is essentially a document retrieval process. It starts with the root node and then proceeds to download the leaves, in this case linksets, prims, mesh data, textures, all of them stored on local or remote asset servers (which happen to speak HTTP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My replies are coloured.

 

Masami Kuramoto wrote:

Phil Deakins wrote:

Complete ditto to what Solar said to you.

Solar misrepresented what I said. I never said "OSgrid is a web page." I said it's a website. Solar keeps confusing these things because he really has no clue what I am talking about.

I know that. I already said that Solar made that small mistake.

I've decided that either you are really stupid or that you are someone who enjoys arguing the impossible, just for the sake of the enjoyment.

I can't deny that I am enjoying this. I've done this before, and there were people calling me stupid just like now. When I said the mesh deformer will take a long time to implement and still fail to work for a lot of meshes, some people probably thought I was stupid. When I said WebGL could be used to make truly web-based (rather than just browser-based, as with Unity) virtual worlds, some people probably thought I was stupid.

You're the first person I've seen who actually enjoys being shot down all the time. Still, whatever floats your boat.

I don't recall seeing anyone call you stupid in this thread. I'm sure that many of us have thought it, but I haven't seen it written.

I get the enjoyment out of being proven right later.

I've no idea about the past but I do know that you'll never be proven right in this case.

I prefer to think it's the latter but I may be mistaken. So I'm going to leave you with your silly belief - that nobody has supported or agreed with.

Since you failed to prove that my definition of the web is wrong
, I'd rather say that only three people disagreed with it. I recommend looking at Tim Berners-Lee's original proposal to CERN, written in 1989. It contains a list of requirements that the proposed world wide web should meet. If you go through that list, you will find out that the hypergrid (which Second Life is _not_ part of) fulfills most of them.

I wouldn't go as far as saying that the hypergrid protocol is good enough to become a W3C recommendation.
A grid is formally not a website
. But technically it is, because it is pretty much in line with what
Tim Berners-Lee
had in mind for his web: remotely accessible, platform-independent, decentralized (this is where Second Life fails), merging existing data and formats, hyperlinked, featuring bells and whistles, dynamic.

I haven't discussed your definition of the web, so I haven't tried to prove it right or wrong. I've only discussed your false claim that these grids are websites. In discussing it, I've made you decide not to answer most of what I've said and what I've asked, because you don't any answers. You simply ignore the hard bits, hoping that I won't notice lol. Not only that, but I've forced you to resort to making things up and putting them in my mouth. It a technique that's resorted to by people who don't have answers but don't want to admit they were wrong.

Tim Berners-Lee came up with the hyperlink which gave rise to the web. He doesn't get to decide anything about the web, and neither does W3C, but that's another discussion.

I think that (the bit in red) says enough. A grid is formally not a website. On that we agree so I don't know why you keep arguing otherwise. A grid and a website certainly have some elements in common but that doesn't make them both websites - not even technically. A motorbyke has an engine, seats for more than one person, a steering mechanism, wheels, needs fuel, etc. but it is not a car, and never will be a car - not even technically. Your logic is flawed.

Just one thing before I leave you though. Where is this OS or SL document that you speak of? You've held it up as proof of your argument so it's important to you. But where is it? Explain it please.

Each region on a grid is an independent unit of information. Like any other 3D scene, a region is basically a scene graph, i.e. a tree-like hierarchy of objects. Scene graphs can be encoded as XML documents, using markup languages like VRML, X3D, or COLLADA. The process of loading a region is essentially a document retrieval process. It starts with the root node and then proceeds to download the leaves, in this case linksets, prims, mesh data, textures, all of them stored on local or remote asset servers (which happen to speak HTTP).

Do you have an example of this region document? I agree that XML documents are in fact documents but I'd like to see either an example of a region document, because you said thayt's what a region is, or an explanation of it by either LL or OS.
Even if a region is intially described in a document, are all the live updates also described by documents? I'd like more information, not written by you but pointed to by you, on all these documents.

I don't believe that everything is transfered in the form of formal documents. I believe it is transfered in the form of data. Nevertheless, even if everything is transfered in the form of documents, it certainly wouldn't mean that a grid is a website.

HTTP is a transfer protocol which, although it was devised for the web, is still only a protocol for transfering what needs to be transfered. It's not a protocol that can only be used to transfer documents. So don't rely on HTTP as evidence.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Unless he went back and edited the post I originaly replied to (some pages back - and knowing this kid as I do, it's likely that he has done so) - You'll notice that he changed his claim halfway through this "debate".

Either way, it does not matter.

Second Life and OSGrid are not web pages, they are not web sites. The distinction in this, for the general public, is semantic.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Masami Kuramoto wrote:

I can't deny that I am enjoying this. I've done this before, and there were people calling me stupid just like now. When I said the mesh deformer will take a long time to implement and still fail to work for a lot of meshes, some people probably thought I was stupid. When I said WebGL could be used to make truly web-based (rather than just browser-based, as with Unity) virtual worlds, some people probably thought I was stupid.

I get the enjoyment out of being proven right later.
 


you a bit weird sometimes. and you doing it again here

like earlier you said:

"LL keeps adding stuff that no one wants or needs (web profiles, pathfinding) or stuff that just plain doesn't work (direct delivery) while blocking the stuff that everyone is waiting for (e.g. the mesh deformer)."

so i say at the time this dont make any sense. deformer is blocked by linden bc the approach taken by the indie dev team who implemented it ignore what is already known to the cs/dev community as a open and hard problem. and bc the implementation not solve the problem then linden say is unsuitable for inclusion in their consumer release viewer

then you go rah rah rah again and then finally end up agree the indie deformer approach taken was/is actual wrong. and then you say you knew this way before sooo anyways. na na na na naaa !!!

+

other factor you seems to forget is linden also made a project viewer for them who want to play with the indie deformer code implementation and see what they can make of it

other biggie factor you seems to overlook is that then linden senior dev team members who actual know about this problem made a call to not make a deformer bc they dont have the resources to throw at trying to solve an open and hard problem. which for the general case is uncomputable

so they decide to just make a collada mesh object uploader and renderer which is doable and affordable

+

truly web-based ?

 

how a browser dev team writes/styles code to implement web protocols in their browser is immaterial. the only thing that matters is that devs implement the protocols in the commonly understood way so to not change the protocols themselves

whether the compiled code to implement a web protocol is actual in the core browser application or provided as a plugin is immaterial as well

it might be more convenient tho to include a hardcoded or static-linked gfx rendering engine in a browser distro. but thats about all really

+

like you and Phil i am happy to debate these kinda things forever. if you keep making claims unsupported by evidence then am always willing to carry on providing counter arguments. like on and on and on and on (:

whenever you do say something that is supported by evidence than i will also agree with you. like i done already on some points that you have raised

have come to understand you a bit better more. like how you think

you think very similar to lots of indie devs who try to make software alone with little resources of their own. this might not be your actual situation. just seems to me that you think in the same way they do

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Phil Deakins wrote:

I've decided that either
you are really stupid
or that you are someone who enjoys arguing the impossible, just for the sake of the enjoyment.

[...]

I don't recall seeing anyone call you stupid
in this thread. I'm sure that
many of us have thought it
, but I haven't seen it written.

Emphasis mine. I like your passive-agressive style and your frequent illusions of unanimity. Do you feel cornered, Mr. Deakins?


You simply ignore the hard bits

So far, there hasn't been anything "hard" coming from you. Most of the time you say things like "You're wrong" or "Do your own research." You shift the burden of proof on me because your hands are empty. When I argued that both the browser-centric and the standards-centric view fail to properly describe the web, you completely ignored that. Now you even dispute the authority of the very person who wrote the browser that gave the web its name:


Tim Berners-Lee came up with the hyperlink which gave rise to the web. He doesn't get to decide anything about the web, and neither does W3C, but that's another discussion.

I think that (the bit in red) says enough. A grid is formally not a website. On that we agree so I don't know why you keep arguing otherwise.

I am not arguing otherwise. You keep arguing because you disagree that a grid is technically a website. I haven't changed my position at all.


 A grid and a website certainly have some elements in common but that doesn't make them both websites - not even technically. A motorbyke has an engine, seats for more than one person, a steering mechanism, wheels, needs fuel, etc. but it is not a car, and never will be a car - not even technically. Your logic is flawed.

Your analogy is flawed. Here's an accurate one: A Skype call is technically a phone call. You could go on for hours telling me that Skype uses a proprietary VoIP protocol, requires special phones or no phone at all, can do video, text chat and file transfer as well, etc. blah blah blah... it's still a phone call, because it involves person A talking to person B over a network. And this is all that matters.


Do you have an example of this region document? I agree that XML documents are in fact documents but I'd like to see either an example of a region document, because you said thayt's what a region is, or an explanation of it by either LL or OS.

You can export region archives from OpenSim. They include the scene graph in XML as well as all the attached assets.


Even if a region is intially described in a document, are all the live updates also described by documents?

Would you consider a live update of a web page via AJAX a document? How about Cloud Party's use of WebSocket communication?


I'd like more information, not written by you but pointed to by you, on all these documents.

Do your own research!


I don't believe that everything is transfered in the form of formal documents. I believe it is transfered in the form of data. Nevertheless, even if everything is transfered in the form of documents, it certainly wouldn't mean that a grid is a website.

Even if I was right, I would still be wrong. Do you feel cornered, Mr. Deakins?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 3200 days.

Please take a moment to consider if this thread is worth bumping.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share


×
×
  • Create New...