Linden Lab is building a NEW virtual world

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

MB Robonaught wrote:

Has anyone considered that the reason Linden Labs won't be allowing inventory transfers is from incompatible technologies between the current SL and the upcoming SL2 and not some grand conspiracy to destroy inventories?

---

Yes, and I am perferctly happy with that.

What I find close to dishonest is when they call it a new version

, when in fact it is an etirely new product where the only thing you can move is your account and LL holding. 

A new version implies backward compatibility (as is customary for all new versions of software) or at a minimum conversion routines for old data/content. 

---

Ebbe's announcment of the new world is quoted below. Where in it does he call it a new version? And you see that in the second paragraph, he's up front about about the expected incompatibilities. Can you provide an example of where LL has made the statement you've indicted?

----

Linden Lab is working on a next generation virtual world that will be in the spirit of Second Life, an open world where users have incredible power to create anything they can imagine and content creators are king. This is a significant focus for Linden Lab, and we are actively hiring to help with this ambitious effort. We believe that there is a massive opportunity ahead to carry on the spirit of Second Life while leveraging the significant technological advancements that have occurred since its creation, as well as our unparalleled experience as the provider of the most successful user-created virtual world ever.

The next generation virtual world will go far beyond what is possible with Second Life, and we don’t want to constrain our development by setting backward compatibility with Second Life as an absolute requirement from the start. That doesn’t mean you necessarily won’t be able to bring parts of your Second Life over, just that our priority in building the next generation platform is to create an incredible experience and enable stunningly high-quality creativity, rather than ensuring that everything could work seamlessly with everything created over Second Life’s 11 year history.

Does this mean we’re giving up on Second Life? Absolutely not. It is thanks to the Second Life community that our virtual world today is without question the best there is, and after 11 years we certainly have no intention of abandoning our users nor the virtual world they continually fill with their astounding creativity. Second Life has many years ahead of it, and in addition to improvements and new developments specifically for Second Life, we think that much of the work we do for the next generation project will also be beneficial for Second Life.

It’s still very early days for this new project, and as we forge ahead in creating the next generation virtual world, we’ll share as much as we can.

If we had one message to share with Second Life users about this new project at this point, it would be: don’t panic, get excited! Again, Second Life isn’t going away, nor are we ceasing our work to improve it. But, we’re also working on something that we think will truly fulfill the promise of virtual worlds that few people understand as well as Second Life users."

----

[Gavin Hird]

The impression SL2 or whatever it is called has been made through the multiple "chats with", transcripts and direct postings made by LL on blogs and web sites since the information was first slipped. 

If you go back in this thread you will see I have corrected people many times saying it is an entirely new product, and have been flamed for it multiple times. 

What you call it (new version, vs new product) has multiple implications for the legalese too, such as the TOS, but I will not go into that here as it will just lead to another lenghty TOS discussion. 

[Madelaine McMasters]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

The impression SL2 or whatever it is called has been made through the multiple "chats with", transcripts and direct postings made by LL on blogs and web sites since the information was first slipped. 

If you go back in this thread you will see I have corrected people many times saying it is an entirely new product, and have been flamed for it multiple times. 

What you call it (new version, vs new product) has multiple implications for the legalese too, such as the TOS, but I will not go into that here as it will just lead to another lenghty TOS discussion. 

---

Okay, just to make sure I'm understanding you. You are accusing others of being close to dishonest, not LL. But that brings me another confusion. How would LL legalese, such as the TOS, be affected by what other people call the new world?

[kiramanell]

Backwards compatibility -- often lobsidedly thrown in our faces here as something holding the company back -- is, in the rest of the world, the corner stone to staying in business. Look at Microsoft, and the history of Windows. With maybe a few small exceptions, a program written for XP, back in the day, will, to date, still run on Windows 8.1 just fine. In fact, if Microsoft had broken with backwards compatibility after XP, Windows would be dead as a doornail by now.

The same could be said for a company like Intel. Why do you think they're still on the x86 architecture!?

To stay with the XP analogy, there's technically no valid reason the New World couldn't come with a 'SL 1.0 Compatibility Mode' too. Especially since the code for it is, naturally, already there. Not doing so is simply a choice. And, much like there's no such thing as being 'a little pregnant,' likewise there's no such thing as 'a little backwards compatible.' Either you are, in full, or you are simply not. Like I've argued before, half a home = no home: if only half the structure can be ported, I will effectively not have ported the home at all.

[Freya Mokusei]

If you're using Microsoft as your use-case for backwards compatibility, you're gonna be awful disappointed.

This is the company that tried to define their own standards for CSS and XML. That has now developed three console systems without a single backwards-compatible game. And Ohgod, Compatibility Mode - it's like the King Knute of the Internet. They spent years deliberately mis-interpreting websites, and now have the brass bits to say they fixed it!

Every single OS-release of Windows since 3.1 (the first version I used) has created non-functional applications and locked out old users along the way. DirectX has been doing this intentionally for years, to name just one of dozens of systems that Microsoft uses to force users to upgrade.

It's okay to say you wish the newcomer was backward compatible, it's not necessary to distort history. And whatever happens, they shouldn't do 'compatibility' the Microsoft Way.

 

[Phil Deakins]

---

kiramanell wrote:

Backwards compatibility -- often lobsidedly thrown in our faces here as something holding the company back -- is, in the rest of the world, the corner stone to staying in business. Look at Microsoft, and the history of Windows. With maybe a few small exceptions, a program written for XP, back in the day, will, to date, still run on Windows 8.1 just fine. In fact, if Microsoft had broken with backwards compatibility after XP, Windows would be dead as a doornail by now.

The same could be said for a company like Intel. Why do you think they're still on the x86 architecture!?

To stay with the XP analogy, there's technically no valid reason the New World couldn't come with a 'SL 1.0 Compatibility Mode' too. Especially since the code for it is, naturally, already there.

Not doing so is simply a choice. And, much like there's no such thing as being 'a little pregnant,' likewise there's no such thing as 'a little backwards compatible.' Either you are, in full, or you are simply not. Like I've argued before, half a home = no home: if only half the structure can be ported, I will effectively not have ported the home at all.

---

You are mistaken. Windows has never had full backward compatibility. With each new version, some programmes need to be rewritten or bite the dust. So Windows (your shining example) is one thing that doesn't have full backward compatibility.

However, LL is not producing a new version. As Maddy showed, they are producing a new product, so backward compatibility doesn't even enter into it. You don't find all the parts of one car fitting a new car from the company, even though the new car has the same name for the model, although a few parts might. There is no reason for LL to bend over backward to make everything, or even most things, that works in SL also work in the new product, and there is every reason not to.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Madelaine McMasters wrote:

---

 How would LL legalese, such as the TOS, be affected by what other people call the new world?

---

I will not go into it, but will just give you a couple hints:

I, as a content creator, have not authorized anyone, including Linden Lab, to transfer my creations into a new product. Any creation comes to mind, but my full perm products in particular. 

I, as a consumer, have not authorized my account information, including credit card information, to be transferred or used in a new product. 

[kiramanell]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

If you're using Microsoft as your use-case for backwards compatibility, you're gonna be awful disappointed.

This is the company that tried to define their own standards for CSS and XML. That has now developed three console systems without a single backwards-compatible game. And Ohgod, compatibility mode - it's like the King Knute of the Internet.

It's okay to say you wish the newcomer was backward compatible, it's not necessary to distort history. And whatever happens, they shouldn't do 'compatibility' the Microsoft Way. 

---

 

I have programs written for XP that still run fine on Windows 8.1. Most all still do. That is simply a fact. You may find that an Incovenient Truth, but it's no less true.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

kiramanell wrote:

I have programs written for XP that still run fine on Windows 8.1.

Most all still do.

 

---

Cool story. I have plenty of programs written for XP that don't work on Windows 8.1. We can both agree that it's not "all programs".

I'm pretty sure your words were:-

---

kiramanell wrote:

there's no such thing as 'a little backwards compatible.' Either you are, in full, or you are simply not.

---

But okay, great. You have one part of one Microsoft product that they kludged together and works (so long as you didn't accidentally buy Home Edition!), and now believe you can dictate facts.

My point is there's no need to compare Second Life to other services (which also aren't backwards compatible) - the 'expected behaviour' that you have is merely anecdotal.

[kiramanell]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

However, LL is not producing a new version. As Maddy showed, they are producing a new product, so backward compatibility doesn't even enter into it. You don't find all the parts of one car fitting a new car from the company, even though the new car has the same name for the model, although a few parts might. There is no reason for LL to bend over backward to make everything, or even most things, that works in SL also work in the new product,

and there is every reason not to.

---

 

What Maddy showed, is that LL is using word-play to sidestep the backwards compatibility issue, is all. "Ooo, let;s call it a different product, so as to rid ourselves of backwards compatibility request!" In reality, of course, SL 2.0 simply *will* be the successor of SL 1.0, made and intended to replace our current version of SL.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

---

My point is there's no need to compare Second Life to other services (which also aren't backwards compatible) - the 'expected behaviour' that you have is merely anecdotal.

---

Not sure what world you live in, but take a highly successful company like Apple, who take particular care to ensure backward compatibility through generations of products and even across complete changes of processors.

When they moved from PowerPC to Intel processors, 98% of applications written for, and compiled for the PowerPC processor ran unmodified on Intel processors. The same happened when they moved from the Motorola 68xxx family to PowerPC processors. 

When they introduced the 64-bit processor in the iPhone5 and iPad Air, all 32-bit apps ran without a hitch on the new systems.

So, yes, people do expect backward compatibility and seamless transfer of content they have made. 

... unless you work with SharePoint that is, haha

 

[kiramanell]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

But okay, great. You have one part of a Microsoft product that they kludged together and works (so long as you didn't accidentally buy Home Edition!), and now believe you can dictate facts.

---

Facts tend to annoy ppl, that much is certain: especially when they don't suit them  But yes, for all purposes and intent, that 'XP Compatibility Mode' is meant to provide full backwards compatibility. What's anecdotal, rather, are your possible examples of maybe a few programs that aren't (and likely only because they were badly written in the first place, and not because MS screwed up).

If you can tear yourself away a bit from wanting to be right, at all cost, looking for the odd exception, you will see that Microsoft at least made a genuine attempt at offering backwards compatibility, LL, on the other hand, has no such intention.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

people do expect backward compatibility and seamless transfer of content they have made. 

---

This seems to be the crux of yours and Kira's point. I will take it at face value, because I can see why some people would want backwards compatibility.

I find that this expectation only exists where it has been kindled and conditioned into the userbase. I don't think Linden Lab themselves would've ever encouraged this expectation - Ebbe's official talk of the newcomer speaks clearly against it.

I assume these unrelated examples being given are due to messages you've selectively absorbed from other sources? It would never be practical for any platform like Second Life.

I can't explain why users of Second Life would have this expectation. Can you?

[Phil Deakins]

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

However, LL is not producing a new version. As Maddy showed, they are producing a new product, so backward compatibility doesn't even enter into it. You don't find all the parts of one car fitting a new car from the company, even though the new car has the same name for the model, although a few parts might. There is no reason for LL to bend over backward to make everything, or even most things, that works in SL also work in the new product,

and there is every reason not to.

---

 

What Maddy showed, is that LL is using word-play to sidestep the backwards compatibility issue, is all.

"Ooo, let;s call it a different product, so as to rid ourselves of backwards compatibility request!" In reality, of course, SL 2.0 simply *will* be the successor of SL 1.0, made and intended to replace our current version of SL.

---

Ah, so you think it's a conspiracy on LL's part lol. Now I can see the sort of mind you have. Thank you for the illumination

I wonder why you don't want to accept that they actually mean what they say, and are not trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. But I suppose conspiracy theorists prefer things to be a little less simple and straight forward than that. After all, you can't be a conspiracy theorist without making up conspiracies to rail against, can you?

Unfortunately, you shot yourself in the foot. You say that something is either backward compatible or it's not, as black and white as a person is either pregnant or not pregnant (your example), and there is no such thing as partly backward compatible. Then you say that most of your XP programmes still work with Windows 8, which, of course, is clear evidence that Windows 8 is only partly backward compatible, thereby showing that your first statement was totally wrong. Would you like to make up your mind what your attitude actually is, and let us know?

[Gavin Hird]

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I can't explain why people would have this expectation. Can you?

---

Because people a) don't like the idea of throwing away their stuff – particulary when the stuff has been made significant personal effort into, like a sim or environment. b) they don't want to be left behind (on the old, when new and shiny is there) and c) they have been generally educated and expect also electronic items to persist over even a lifetime. 

Form a business standpoint it is almost a disaster as LL will wipe the slate clean, and they will compete with a million voices out there for your attention and money. There is no guarantee the customer base will move to the new, and they migh not even stay on the old. 

[Phil Deakins]

---

kiramanell wrote:

Microsoft at least made a genuine attempt at offering backwards compatibility, LL, on the other hand, has no such intention.

---

And LL is dead right in that decision. Absolutely, categorically, dead right. If they want to stay ahead of the game, it's imperitive that they do a total job, and fit partial backward compatibility in if it doesn't hinder the advancements. I can't imagine anyone, who actually thinks about it, wanting it to be any different - except those who have spent a few dollars in SL and want everything they've historically spent to be maintained in the new product so not a cent of it will be obsolete. Too self-centred to bother with, imo.

[Freya Mokusei]

---

kiramanell wrote:

What's anecdotal, rather, are your possible examples of maybe a few programs that aren't (and likely only because they were badly written in the first place, and not because MS screwed up).

---

I see. My unverified information is anecdotal, yours is a fact.

I don't know why you keep talking about Microsoft, do you have the same expectations from Second Life that you have from an Operating System? If so, why? Second Life isn't an operating system.

Would Linden Lab be okay offering backwards compatibility only for an additional $80 per account? Or should Microsoft release their XP mode for free, instead of charging a premium for it (as they do currently)? Which of these two companies would be behaviing acceptably in that case?

Your expectations differ, you're just unwilling to admit it for some reason.

[Phil Deakins]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Freya Mokusei wrote:

I can't explain why people would have this expectation. Can you?

---

Because people a) don't like the idea of throwing away their stuff – particulary when the stuff has been made significant personal effort into, like a sim or environment. b) they don't want to be left behind (on the old, when new and shiny is there) and c) they have been generally educated and expect also electronic items to persist over even a lifetime. 

Form a business standpoint it is almost a disaster as LL will wipe the slate clean, and they will compete with a million voices out there for your attention and money. There is no guarantee the customer base will move to the new, and they migh not even stay on the old. 

---

You seem to be labouring under a misunderstanding. No slates are going to be wiped clean. SL isn't shutting down. People aren't going to lose their stuff. So what's your point? If anyone is so keen on hanging on to every dollar they spent, they can do. Stay in SL. No problem.

But if you want the new world AND all of your stuff transfered over, you can't have it. If you having all your stuff transfered over means that the world is less than it would have been if much or most of your stuff didn't transfer over, then "people" don't support you. It's much too self-centred an attitude to be seriously supported.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 It's much too self-centred an attitude to be seriously supported.

---

Self centered? - Really?  

Way to go to keep your customer base! 

 

[kiramanell]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Ah, so you think it's a conspiracy on LL's part lol. Now I can see the sort of mind you have. Thank you for the illumination

I wonder why you don't want to accept that they actually mean what they say, and are not trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. But I suppose conspiracy theorists prefer things to be a little less simple and straight forward than that. After all, you can't be a conspiracy theorist without making up conspiracies to rail against, can you?

 

---

 

Nah. I just don't like to play childish word-games, is all. Remember how Bush magically 'lowered' the number of war casualties in Iraq, just by redefining the term 'war casualty' a bit?! Same difference: renaming something don't impress me much. However much you want to twist this, SL 2.0 was made and intended to be the successor of SL 1.0.

As for you saying I shot myself in the foot, also nah, that's just you being childishly literal, thinking you won the argument that way. It *does* remind me, however, why I stopped posting in this thread: no mature conversation can be had here.

[kiramanell]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

Because people a) don't like the idea of throwing away their stuff – particulary when the stuff has been made significant personal effort into, like a sim or environment. b) they don't want to be left behind (on the old, when new and shiny is there) and c) they have been generally educated and expect also electronic items to persist over even a lifetime. 

Form a business standpoint it is almost a disaster as LL will wipe the slate clean, and they will compete with a million voices out there for your attention and money. There is no guarantee the customer base will move to the new, and they migh not even stay on the old. 

---

Is it bad that i agree with everything you said here?! Kudos for a point well made!

[Perrie Juran]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 It's much too self-centred an attitude to be seriously supported.

---

Self centered? - Really?  

Way to go to keep your customer base! 

 

---

I don't understand all the wailing and gnashing of teeth.

LL has stated they have no plans to shut down SL.  Though I think we all understand that is true only as long as SL stays profitable.

But you know, we may not be the target customer for the Next Generation Platform.  The target customer for that could be the next generation of Users.  A whole new world for them to build in and to explore.

Unless (until) SL closes we will all have a choice which we want to embrace.

(Of course LL could be lieing through their teeth and still be planning on shutting down SL as soon as the new world opens.  That possibility still exists but personally I doubt that they are doing that).

[Phil Deakins]

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 It's much too self-centred an attitude to be seriously supported.

---

Self centered? - Really?   

---

Yes. Absolutely.

[Phil Deakins]

---

kiramanell wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

Ah, so you think it's a conspiracy on LL's part lol. Now I can see the sort of mind you have. Thank you for the illumination

I wonder why you don't want to accept that they actually mean what they say, and are not trying to pull the wool over everyone's eyes. But I suppose conspiracy theorists prefer things to be a little less simple and straight forward than that. After all, you can't be a conspiracy theorist without making up conspiracies to rail against, can you?

 

---

 

Nah. I just don't like to play childish word-games, is all. Remember how Bush magically 'lowered' the number of war casualties in Iraq, just by redefining the term 'war casualty' a bit?! Same difference: renaming something don't impress me much. However much you want to twist this, SL 2.0 was made and intended to be the successor of SL 1.0.

As for you saying I shot myself in the foot, also nah, that's just you being childishly literal, thinking you won the argument that way. It *does* remind me, however, why I stopped posting in this thread: no mature conversation can be had here.

---

I'm British, so I'm not familiar with what you said about Bush.

Of course, SL2 is intended to replace SL. Nobody said otherwise. But SL won't close when SL2 comes along. It will only close when it's no longer worthwhile keeping open.

It's you who twists things, not the rest of us. Ebbe stated what the new product would be, and why it was necessary, but you prefer to believe that he's covering something up and pulling the wool over our eyes. What he said was plain. What you believe is a copmplete twisting of what he said.

You did shoot yourself in the foot. You said one thing and then provided your personal evidence to disprove what you said. We can only understand the words you write and take them literally. But I don't think we had any misunderstanding of your statement that either something is backward compatible or it's not. It was black or white, one or other, no grey involved. You used pregnancy as a parallel and you were very clear and adamant about it. Then you produced evidence to disprove your statement. Now you're trying to squirm out of it by suggesting that we shouldn't take what you write quite so literally lol If we can't take that statement literally, then you should stop posting because we would have no idea at all what you mean.

[Gavin Hird]

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

---

Gavin Hird wrote:

---

Phil Deakins wrote:

 It's much too self-centred an attitude to be seriously supported.

---

Self centered? - Really?   

---

Yes. Absolutely.

---

Companies that think like you goes the way of Nokia. Once a market leader – now nowhere to be seen.