Jump to content

Inara Pey

Resident
  • Content Count

    351
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

287 Excellent

About Inara Pey

  • Rank
    Advanced Member

Recent Profile Visitors

757 profile views
  1. Ummm... Hate to be the bearer of bad news, but as at 5:19 PST / SLT on November 12th: The release notes links to the 532376 SLS and RC deploys point to the 532553 releases notes The notes above don't provide a link to the 532553 release notes.
  2. Considering I've recently written an entire piece on both of the release processes, viewer and simulator, I'm more than a little embarrassed about getting my version numbers muddled up above!
  3. Yeah. Home just rolled. I was additionally confused as we have a gallery space on the local cluster of region, and that and the home region used to roll pretty much simultaneously - we couldn't simply jump to the gallery to avoid the home roll or vice versa.
  4. It's confusing, but from what I've tracked, it appears that the deployment dates on the new pages only refer to the *original* date a deployment was made, and which is *not* updated when the release rolls to SLS. Thus, 2019-10-03T01:12:11.531528 will show Tuesday Oct 8th, because that was the date on which it was originally deployed to an RC. (And yes, I'm aware the 693 notes refer to Monday 14th - I assume that's just a mis-type in the release notes.)
  5. Actually, my bad on this - mis-read my own notes! 715 was actually the release the script fubar was rolled back *to*. So I'll go sit in the corner with a pointy hat on for the rest of the day
  6. I'm actually totally confused. My home region (which used to be on SLS, and AFAIK hasn't been moved by request) is reporting release 2019-09-06T22:03:53.530715 - which I thought was the one pulled a couple of weeks back due to the whole scripting fubar situation. However, the region our gallery space and bar is on, (and which is still SLS as far as I've aware) is reporting 2019-10-03T01:12:11.531528 (so apparently correct), as is my Linden Home region, which has also always been SLS ... Edited to add: never mind... mis-read my own notes... see below!
  7. Caleb - Mag and LT are still "[TBD]" - are they defo. going to 2019-09-06T18:49:52.530700 as well, or....? If they are, the links need updating.
  8. There is apparently a race condition that can cause double rolls. The Lab is aware of it, and are working for fix it (via feedback at the Tuesday Sept 10th SUG meeting).
  9. Not wishing to argue, but from those organising the "Save the LEA" in-world group: "In addition a notecard containing a growing list of people with "confirmed" interest willing to serve on the new committee ... 7 qualified people interested leadership roles with BIO's. 17 people willing to volunteer time and talent to various proposed new project areas and assist new committee members." I've no idea what constitutes "qualified" in context, but it would appear at least 7 people have thrown their names into the ring to take responsibility for any new organisation. Again, are these ideas being collated and forwarded to those co-ordinating the effort (or are any of them here to collate ideas?
  10. This is true, so far as engaging some from SL and gaining a positive toe-hold on Steam is concerned - hence why LL are turning (as I think they actually should) to other potential audiences. It's certainly generating the interest - but retention remains the sticking point.
  11. Scylla - thanks for posting this! I would emphasise the comments in my blog post were deliberately generic - and abbreviated. I've actually dropped a more extensive note card based on my time writing about arts & the LEA & working with the Lab to the organisers of the "LEA2.0" group - would strongly urge those who read this thread and who haven't already to do the same .
  12. As I noted in my reply - Sansar was premature in its launch, lacking features, and aimed towards a market (VR) that has itself yet to actually be realised. It's also only on Steam as an Early Access application - again reflecting its "in development" beta status. Ergo, there are a range of factors that, in my view, preclude it being either a "success" or a "failure".
  13. You're welcome! I have a bit of an advantage in being a comprehensive note-taker (and having a memory that generally hangs on to things read / said / seen), poking my nose into meetings wherever they occur, and keeping an eye on the Lab as often as a can and poking them them when I see something that piques curiosity. (Although WRT Tilia Inc., Vic Forcella gets the credit for spotting the lab grabbing the Tilia name in 2014, and passing his investigations on to me so I could start digging!) Also, and as an aside, nice to catch up with you again!
  14. If that's what you want to believe, that's you prerogative. It's inaccurate, but still your prerogative. I'm still curious as to citations for other "big lay offs" that have occurred "in the last few years".
  15. Not at all. My post was purely to clarify the history around the "big lay off" of 2010, which as noted is often referenced sans any actual context. But that said... ... I would suggest calling Sansar a "failure" at this point in time is perhaps an over-statement. Rather, I'd say that, success or failure, it's far too early in the day to judge - thanks in part of Sansar being publicly launched far too prematurely, most likely as a result of the Lab buying into all the over-blown hype around VR (such as pundits claiming it would be a $70 billion a year industry by now *coughs*). Of course, the Lab do have to balance expenditure on Sansar and SL very carefully as a result of the former, but it would appear that SL remains pretty healthy in terms of the revenue it supplies to LL (regardless of where they opt to spend it). User revenue generation through credit processing remains on a par with previous years, grid shrinkage has been a lot slower than previous years, etc. If, by "part of that" you mean the fee increases are related to the "failure" of Sansar, then I'm sorry, I would have to disagree. Practically since his first day at the office, Ebbe Altberg has made absolutely no secret of the fact that he agrees with the mantra "the tier is too damned high!", and wants to rectify that by shifting the onus on revenue generation to other aspects of the platform (for citations on this, I offer the many transcripts and audio recordings of his public presentations at - VWBPE keynotes, Lab Chat events, Meet the Lindens sessions, etc.). At the same time, almost from the time he joined, he's also made no secret of the fact that the Lab needed to do far more on matters of compliance in handling money (something which hit the headlines just before he started at LL, when the US FinCEN issued interpretive guidelines which looked to impinge on matters of virtual currencies). Again, as evidence of this, Tilia's own roots at a Linden Lab subsidiary go back as far as around mid-2014, when the company acquired the name (see: Linden Lab and Tilia Inc. – speculations on the Lab’s new subsidiary, my blog, Nov 2015). As such, I think it would be a mistake to attribute the recent fee changes as anything other than has already been stated: in part to meet the costs of establishing Tilia Inc as a means for LL to better meet its fiduciary responsibilities at federal and state level as a registered MSB. as required by FinCEN et a; and in part to meet the Lab's attempts to reduce the price of virtual land within the platform (most notably the Mainland and private region fee reduction of 2018. If you're reading this into my comments, then I apologise, as no such parallel was intended in my statements. I certainly don't think we're anywhere close to seeing Sansar "dismantled". Yes, LL is trying to shift its revenue model - but again, as noted, it's been a matter of record that they want to for five years now. In that time, we've see various fee increases, up to and including the recent Premium fee increases - and (in 2018 at least) reductions in land tier. Ergo, tying these shifts purely to some perception of Sansar's "failure" is not, I would suggest, entirely correct. Finally, as just as a sort-of aside, I'd actually suggest that when it comes Tilia Inc., is - beyond its role in allowing Linden Lab with the means to meet fiduciary responsibilities as an MSB under US federal and state laws for both SL and Sansar - the company actually allows the Lab to potentially open up new revenue generating avenues, by allowing them to provide their experience in managing virtual economies to clients quite outside of Second Life and Sansar. Again, as evidence of this, I refer you to the Tilia Inc website, and to comments by Soft Linden towards the end of Information About Privacy and Security in Tilia. Obviously, time will tell if this really can work, but the potential is there. So, no, I'm not in any way trying to draw parallels . Again, apologies if this were perceived to be the case. And just as a P.S. none of the above should be taken to mean I think Sansar is / will be a "success". As noted, right now I think it is still too early in the day to say either way - and low concurrency numbers don't always reveal the whole story.
×
×
  • Create New...