Jump to content

Is Linden Lab abandoning Second Life?


Tytia Atheria
 Share

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2559 days.

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

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

 


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

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

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Perrie Juran wrote:

 

Madelaine McMasters wrote:


Amethyst Jetaime wrote:

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

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 
facepalm smiley.gif

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


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. 
facepalm smiley.gif

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.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are about to reply to a thread that has been inactive for 2559 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...