Wayfinder Wishbringer

You don't like the comments AC14... don't read the blogs. ; ) Not everyone is happy with Linden Lab right now (I know that may come as a shock) but... that's what blog comments are for-- to get a wide variety of feedback. I don't think they're here for you try to censor other's comements, viewpoints or reactions. There are numerous unhappy people on this thread. That could have been avoided altogether if (and how many times do we have to say this) Linden Lab had just bothered to look ahead a bit and work to prevent potential blunders. Like someone back there said, do they even consider such issues in the meeting room? That's the point we're making.

Yes Shockwave, I agree in principle. They did seem to listen a little bit when people started screaming about Display.Names. What I'm referring to is the blog email I received today (because I'm signed up to receive blogs) which states that anyone using two-name-field viewers (anything except 2.x) will now be required to enter both names separated by a dot and "resident" in the last name field, ie: Wayfinder.Wishbringer Resident. It is foreseeable that anyone who hasn't seen that blog post will be frustrated as all get-out when they try to log in and it fails. On the other hand, despite that blog, when I logged in today under the old method... it worked as always and didn't work when I tried to follow the instructions on their blog. LOL. The company has never been strong on communications. I still foresee there will be some difficulties with the Display.Name concept. I do understand they are trying to allow people to choose their own names without major impact on the grid... but I (and countless others) believe the method they've chosen (as with so many LL decisions) is a bad one that really doesn't do what customers asked... basically "Give us the option to permanently change our names". Which really, should have been quite easy if the LL coders stuck to smarts and always referred to users by their UUID and never by their name. All that would entail then is changing one single data field... problem solved. Of course, if the coders were sloppy and didn't do that... if they did hard-code SL to sometimes look at the avatar name instead of the avatar UUID... yeah... all sorts of problems. Of course my solution to that is fix the problems, not bring in yet another sloppy patch.

Bucky: "Dont people bring predictable events up such as this in internal meetings beforehand?" Apparently not Bucky. LL rules when it comes to failing to predict future consequences. Then... even when those consequences are predicted for them (such as hundreds of customers screaming "Don't do that!!!")... they do it anyway, such as we'll see with the extreme confusion in today's Display.Names fiasco. Do they have any idea how many people are going to be screaming because they can't log in today... and didn't get some obscure blog notice about how to log in with older viewers? So good point Bucky. LL seems to have a long, long habit of ignoring obvious consequences for actions. Typical LL boardroom meeting: http://www.flickr.com/photos/52693932@N05/5186915539/sizes/l/in/photostream/ How this applies to this situation: "Hey guys do you think there may be a problem with customer anger when thousands of people are blocked from trying our uber-hyped new web viewer?" "Uh... who cares about how customers feel? That has nothing to do with profit." "Yes it does guys! Angry customers leave! Profit falls." (Rest of boardroom snorts, fires the guy, hires more "yes men") (This satirical tongue-in-cheek post presented by "SL Customers Against Further Lunacy")

So a person who lives in the U.S., who has been a member of SL for 6 years, who has a quad core computer, high-level graphics card and 6.5 mpbs cable internet-- for some reason "doesn't qualify" to test the system. Seriously? And instead of actually saying, "We cannot grant access to the beta web viewer at this time. Please download the standard viewer here..." (which would make sense to anyone testing that page) they just leave folks hanging and wondering what's going on. (As a direct response to your comment... most people really don't have time to read every word of the tons of stuff Linden Lab decides to post on the web. People try the product... if it doesn't work or is confusing without reading some obscure blog somewhere... then they mark it a bad product. The idea is to make it easier and faster to check out SL... not more confusing, yes?) Philip Rosedale stated they were going to stop working on new toys and instead focus on SL core foundation. Yet the gimmicks keep coming. And they keep going after "new users" when they can't even support their current membership. Borked chat, borked group chat, borked inventory, borked this, borked that... but let's waste time on a web-based viewer that's going to seriously impact people's bandwidth limits (meaning: it probably wasn't a good idea from the start). So as one person back there stated... I have to wonder why they're working on stuff like this when they can't even get chat to work correctly... after firing a large chunk of their staff... after borking viewer 2... it just doesn't make sense to continue spending valuable time and money on projects that simply will not help the grid. No matter how many new users they attract, they're going to be just like the 19.5 million who have already left the board due to poor performance, poor support, and poor concept. That's my feedback on this project: just another fail. Sorry if that ruffles some feathers... but it's the truth. LL is not going to improve or "save" Second LIfe by focusing on new toys... while the grid itself struggles along.

I find it rather humorous that this "you don't have to download a viewer" project... rather than taking us to a web based browser upon registration... takes us instead to a Second Life viewer download page. OH BOY! A NEW WAY TO REGISTER! HOOOOO! And ohhhh goody... we're back to forced last names again! Not much impressed.

"If you qualify, you’ll be asked to share your email address to create a temporary guest account to use the SL Web Viewer." I have to say I wonder what exactly "share your email address" means... and will mention that statement makes me feel uneasy... as in "avoid this at all costs" uneasy. Share your email address? That's either very poor wording, or a very bad idea.

This email praising LL for moderating these boards has been removed by poster. No praise was due... as they failed to consistently follow through. Linden Lab-- to do things right-- you have to keep doing them right.

Romaq: "I'm excited about the potential of mesh avatars..." Me too. Except that I've seen how sculpties were implemented on SL, and it wasn't so great. Nice idea, but doesn't matter a hill of beans if sculpties don't rez or take an hour to form. So I'm not holding my breath on the mesh deal, and I'll believe it when I see it not only implemented... but implemented correctly. IF. "...but things like the demise of Avatars United have me 'concerned' about trusting my ass-ets with any one asset server I don't completely control." Yeah. I don't expect to have total control over everything, but it does seem like we have significant, major investments in SL that are totally at the whim of Linden Lab. These are supposedly OUR property, OUR creations, OUR assets, OUR intellectual property... but THEY control them and can even shut down and destroy them if they so desire? I'm not even sure that's legal, let alone "right". "Anyway, I need to sort out removing my subscription to this thread. My only real interest here is the irony should Microsoft do to SL what Linden did to XStreetSL and Avatars United. Nothing personal, I really don't know anyone in this discussion. But... wow." I understand and totally agree. I'm about getting to that point myself. There comes a point where responding becomes a royal waste of time (in truth, that was probably the case with my first response. LOL. I really have to remember, "Don't feed the..." ) Have a good one. In general, I couldn't agree with you more. I'm setting up SL alternatives myself. Not abandoning SL... yet... but sure not any longer putting my eggs in one basket. I've totally stopped building and creating on SL and am doing all my creating on an external grid. The last two years considered, and considering I can't even export my own builds any more if they contain someone else's public domain textures... I consider further development on this platform an exercise in futility.

Sidney: "since you've had as many deleted as I have and you continue to insult as well." No Sidney. I've not insulted you. I've simply disagreed with your statements and challenged you to put some facts behind you claims. That's not insult: that's requiring you to support your claims with evidence. If you took that as insult, I'm sorry, I can't help that. When you make blanket adamant statements, you have to be ready to defend them against challengers. As far as I can tell, you've failed / refused to do so. I'm not insulting you in pointing that out; I'm stating obvious fact. As far as my posts being deleted... they were posts that were in response (perhaps unwisely) to posts by you and Galileo that were insulting others here (just as this post is in further such response) and once your post were removed... mine were by very nature no longer valid. I agreed with LL removing those posts as well and stated so publicly. I didn't insult you once. Just as with this post, I did no more than point out you two have been repeatedly and personally attacking other users here, without basis or fact, and are conducting yourself inappropriately for these threads. If you find that to be insulting... there's no one else to blame for that situation. If you want respect from others, show a little yourself. If you don't want people challenging your statements, well, sorry, that's just how things work on public discussion blogs. When you openly challenge others here... we have right to respond in kind.

Sidney: "(Again, hilarious. Their only business model was the one used by a variety of failed social networks -- lose money on every hit, and make it up in volume." So let me understand: you are blatantly stating here, as fact, that all social websites use the exact same business model and that although you (apparently) did not extensively examine AU prior to their being acquired by Linden Lab, they undoubtedly followed that same (supposed) identical business model? And again you are absolutely stating that AU (without doubt of course) was a "failed social network" prior to that aquisition? I cannot take such a post seriously. These are just blank, baseless assertions without any basis in reality.

Romaq, there are two ways that come immediately to mind to look at the supposed Microsoft aquisition issue: 1) Take it seriously or 2) Realize this rumor started as result of a blog post that quoted a Twitter from an alleged griefer advocate The one thing that struck me as interesting is that Linden Lab "neither confirmed nor denied" such claim, which to me is a big red flag that says "Offer made! Considering it!", otherwise they would simply say no such offer has been made, or "Such offer was made and declined, users have nothing to worry about." So I tend to go with option 1. But then again, this is Linden Lab. They don't always take the most sensible, logical path, especially when communicating with customers. So we really have no clue. That being the case... there are some serious issues to consider: * Micro$oft has very, very deep pockets. Enough to buy SL many times over. * Does Linden Lab have a history of taking customer needs and agreements into consideration in their decisions? * Why would Microsoft want to acquire Second Life in the first place? * Will they leave the grid running and try to perhaps even improve where they've seen LL go wrong... or is their intent to take down the grid, pull the code apart piece by piece, recode it as it should have been written in the first place, and use it for some totally different application? That last one is the question of the day. Microsoft has shown a mixed history. On some things they listen to customers. On some things they don't. They obviously weren't listenting when they released Me or Vista. They only half-listened when they released W7 (the majority of Windows users don't like the extreme UI changes they made there and still use XP... what, 70 to 80% of the market in fact?). While Windows has a lot of enemies... Microsoft does seem to have a knack for creating social networks. It's like two totally separate areas of the company working in two totally different manners. So is there a chance Microsoft could acquire Second Life, actually debug and strengthen the code, apply sensible pricing based on more savvy marketing practices, and take SL to where it should have been all along? That would certainly be the best eventuality wouldn't it. What it comes down to, as far as I can see, is that we look at three very diverse potentialities... each one seemingly equally viable. If Microsoft is wanting to buy SL, and if Linden Lab is considering selling (that is their right; their company)... then will Microsoft leave it as is, limping along, or will they tear it apart and destroy it... or will they prove to be its salvation? Since we have no way of fortelling the future, I'm relegating this to "I guess we'll see what happens". I'm going to try hard to not lose any sleep over the matter until we hear someting more concrete. : )

Sidney: "you're very quick to disbelieve someone when you don't want to, despite your hypocritical stance earlier about giving people the benefit of the doubt, aren't you?" Sidney, how can you have as many posts removed here as you have, and still feel it is proper to insult other users on these threads. Do you not learn? All you had to do was politely respond as I requested, and present the steps to do an all-inclusive search. Rather than doing that, you once again chose to stoop to further insulting another poster on this board. Abuse reporting this. There's just no excuse for such continued attitude.

BTW, just to check myself (not that I planned to spend any degree of time on it at all) I went to the WoW website and checked their forums. There were no less than 200 separate forum headings, each of which would have to be individually searched to do a valid forum search there. (Unless I missed something, which is possible, I found no general all-inclusing forum search area). So you'll excuse me if I don't buy the "search" claim at all. If I'm mistaken and there is a way to run a search on all those separate headings all at once, I'm open to learning how you performed your all-inclusive search.

Sidney: "As should have been clear from my post, I went back and did a unlimited search on Linden. There was nothing relevant. Not a thing." Then I would have to believe one of two things, as previously stated. Either: 1) Something in your search parameters were incorrect, failing to yield valid results or... 2) WoW has a policy of moderating out comments regarding other companies. Because frankly, after as many years as LL and WoW have both been in business, I would have to believe if you came up with "not a thing" as far as relevant search results, something is seriously amiss. I very much doubt WoW players have never discussed Second Life, Linden Lab, or for that matter... Avatars United. To be frank, I just don't buy it.

Sidney, let me explain a bit further, just to make sure you understand where I'm coming from: "but as for AU, "doing it fine" almost certainly meant bleeding a horrifying amount of cash on a monthly basis, hoping against hope that they could get someone to buy them out before the kitty ran dry." That is a pretty blatant and dogmatic statment. No "ifs", no "perhaps", no "could have"... instead we see "almost certainly meant bleeding..." etc etc. Taking your statement exactly as worded, no social website would be successful, at all. And that sir, is what am challenging, is such emphatic generalized statement... without evidence to support such claims. I'm not lecturing, or arguing with you, nor even denying what what you say is true. I'm saying you're making some pretty brash statements and telling others they are wrong, without any data or facts to support your position. You want us to accept your claims... provide some real evidence. Otherwise, I have to accept that this is nothing more than basic unfounded personal opinion.

Sidney: "Not good enough for you?" No, your personal opinion is not good enough evidence for me... or for anyone I would think. For one thing Sidney, you're not the only computer professional out here (I was a corporate consultant for over 25 years and retired at 48. I know a bit about business too.). Secondly, there are a wide variety of functional web business models... and I know for a fact you can't judge the functional profitability of a website just by giving their website a cursory look-over (I take you you did not extensively study the AU site prior to their aquisition by Linden Lab... and had no opportunity to inquire or study their business model). And to be frank, I find the consistently adversarial nature of your posts to contradict your claim of being an experieinced business professional. (Well, or maybe not. I've seen some business managers throw some serious board-room tantrums. But that's the way to lose credibility... which is part of the point I'm making here.) Sidney: "But the validity of your argument about AU rests entirely on the assumption that AU would still be operating if SL had left them alone. And for that you have NO evidence at all. Sp kindly cease lecturing me on evidentiary arguments. You don't have any hard evidence either." Read again Sidney. I don't make any argument about AU at all, other than likely they were successful enough to catch Linden Lab's attention. I never said at all they would still be operating if LL had left them alone. They might have fallen flat on their face. Or you may be right and they may have already been floundering. The point is, you don't have any evidence or knowledge, either way, yet you've found it proper to make dogmatic assertions and tell other people they're wrong... just like you're telling me still. And from what I can see, all you're doing is arguing rather than being willing to step back and listen to a little reason. You're not discussing, Sidney, you're telling people they're totally wrong... based on nothing but your personal opinion. I'm not "lecturing" you. I'm challenging you to back up your claims with actual evidence. So far you've not only failed, but refused to do so. And that's the difference between our posts. I don't have to have hard evidence-- because I'm not making rampant assertions and presenting them as if they were absolute facts. What I'm doing... is challenging your statements, asking you to present evidence for your very adamant claims-- and maybe step back just a minute and consider the possibility it might not be everyone else that is mistaken here. You came here challenging the statements of almost everyone on this board, making blatant assertions and claims for which you have no factual foundation or evidence. Having an opinion is one thing. Telling other people they're wrong and publicly making critical and vehement statements without any factual foundation... is not valid argument or discussion. If you're going to bluntly tell other people they are wrong, and make assertions about the business validity of a website, it strikes me as sensible to at least have some degree of evidence for such claims. And no, your self-proclaimed business expertise falls far short of meeting the definition of "factual evidence". "I say so" has never been sufficient grounds for respectable debate or discussion.

Sidney: "I don't know much about the two cases which aren't the subject of this blog entry..." Happy to help out there. Prior to LindeX was a privately-held company called GOM, which did pretty much exactly the same thing LindeX is doing now. The business model was fairly identical, they were doing a good job and functioning just fine. It wasn't quite as convenient as LindeX, because Linden Lab wouldn't allow GOM (despite their excellent reputation) to tie in directly to the board, but it was definitely a going concern. Linden Lab used pretty much that exact same business model-- created by GOM-- put together LindeX, did tie it in directly to their L$ accounts... and basically used monopolistic business practices to put GOM out of business. They had stated before they would not compete with their customers... but that's exactly what they did. Regarding Xstreet... prior to its acquisition, SLX was a privately held company that was in business for a number of years. No one but Linden Lab knows all the story there. But SLX even had a competitor called OnRes that was enjoyed by numerous merchants because they had a killer free networked vending system. Both concerns were working, and to be honest, Xstreet management was quite a bit better IMO than Linden Lab (they absolutely did not tolerate griefers and trolls on their board. Flame "reviews" and comments were removed and the user banned from commenting.) It was a professional system. Linden Lab bought out both companies (that's fine, aquisitions occur all all the time). They shut down OnRes (needlessly, IMO), forcing hordes of merchant to scramble re-vending all of their merchandise (since the OnRez vendors now no longer worked), and they starting "Lindenizing" SLX / XstreetSL. Then they came out with a new plan to shut down XstreetSL (a totally functional board with the sole exception of a poor search engine)... re-wrote the system, and are now releasing SL MarketPlace... a system that numerous merchants find very disagreable. As expected it's buggy (there's a big controversy about SL Marketplace not keeping accurate track of sales), it is missing functions that merchants greatly need, and people in general just don't like it. One doesn't have to go far to find out about this; the controversy is easily accessible on these blogs. This is why people are upset Sidney. This is a repetitious management method by Linden Lab-- one which regularly damages customer interests. That's why people are claiming -- accurately imo-- that these decisions are being made based on LL self-interest and without concern and consideration for their customers. That's why people are upset about the AU issue. AU existed (and apparently was functional) prior to Linden Lab's aquisition. I have no idea about the overall health of the company, so I'm not going to make wild claims one way or the other in that regard. But I think it was obviously doing well enough that it caught Linden Lab's eye, so I seriously doubt Sidney, it was floundering on the edge of collapse. I would believe, based on simple common sense, that it was a valid board doing reasonably well... or I doubt LL would have taken an interest in it in the first place. So there's the skinny, to the best of my knowledge. Althought I do have to observe... I'm rather surprised anyone with any length of time on Second Life isn't already aware of these things. These were pretty well-known and public issues. This is why Sidney, posters here are upset. We are aware of these things. We've been around long enough to see this repeated pattern... and it causes us some valid and serious concern about not only what stunt Linden Lab will pull next... but about the future of Second Life itself. We post here regarding historical trends and repeated patterns of operation. I consider the posts and concerns of most users here to be quite valid.

Sidney: You can't search for AU because it's too short. But it would be pretty hard to "rip LL to shreds" without someone at some point using the word Linden. I would agree. But I still question if your search methods were complete. If you just searched the past 7 days... there may have been no basis for that search. This blog itself is 4 days old and the initial announcement regarding AU was made at least a week (I think a little more) before that. Any resultant WoW discussion (regarding a non-WoW company) would, I think, have likely faded before your search period. I think the best method here overall is to ask the original poster to produce links substantiating his/her statement. I know nothing about WoW forums, but a number of professional forums moderate out anger-posts against other companies. Not saything that's what happened there, but it strikes me as a possibility. I am saying that before you infer someone is lying on these threads, you should have a fairly solid ground of evidence for making such statement. Maybe you're right and maybe the person was exaggerating / lying. Maybe they lost track of exactly which WoW blog they read (there's a lot of them, as you state). But a valid researcher doesn't stop when the results seem to support his existing bias; he does extended research to see if his opinion is valid, or not. Like you, I have no desire to spend my time doing such research; so I'm not going to question anyone's statement without proof otherwise. I just take it at face value as that user's experience / opinion. Sidney: "but as for AU, "doing it fine" almost certainly meant bleeding a horrifying amount of cash on a monthly basis, hoping against hope that they could get someone to buy them out before the kitty ran dry... If LL hadn't bought AU, it's very likely AU would have died anyway. Maybe even sooner." Again... on what factual evidence do you make such claims? Do you have any foundation whatsoever for making such statements? Sidney, I make numerous statements on these blogs, but I make durn sure they are based on historical fact and reality. I've been an eye-witness to most of them, have examined official LL charts and data reports, and have been a core participant in many of the original forums behind the statements I make. Anyone can make random claims based on nothing but conjecture. What evidence makes you confident in publicly taking such stance in opposition to the posts of others? I'm not trying to be snide or insulting. I'm simply asking what facts you have to make such very blunt public statements as quoted here?

"If not, then tell me why you believe LL should continue to do so." Seriously? Because they butted in. Someone was already doing the job, and doing it fine, in all three instances. If Linden Lab didn't have the basic skills, the management, or the ability to make these things work, they should have butted out and left well-enough alone in the first place.

"the fan run and official WoW forums are ripping LL to shreds" Sidney: "Searched the entire official WoW forums. Two results for Avatars United. EVER. None for Linden in the past week. And nothing at all relevant to this issue. OMG TEH SKY IS FALLING." Did you search the past two weeks? (and if not, why not?). Did you search for "AU" or "Second Life"? Did you ask this user to cite specific URLs to establish his/her point? Did you search the "fan run" forums as the poster suggested? I'm not saying you're right or wrong in this matter. I am suggesting you don't jump to hasty conclusions. If you're going to do research, do sufficient research. Anything less fails to prove your point. Then when you've done sufficient research, you'll have valid findings to report as opposed to "sky is falling" cliches. ; )

Windmillchaser, I don't like to promote OpenSim on LL's own blog. I'll discuss it realistically, as the direct competition it is to SL, but I don't like to cross ethical lines if I'm aware of them. So I'll try to answer your question without promoting OpenSim (a difficult task). I want to first of all say, just to guard my intent, that I've been an SL user for 6 years. It is undeniably the best technically of any board currently existent. My beef has never been with SL as a concept... but with LL and customer-harmful company policies (as well as exhorbitant pricing). I'm certainly not alone in such viewpoints, as these blogs reveal. As FJ Linden once said, he understands that even negative comments are the result of passion for Second Life. His observation was very astute and balanced. There are literally tens of thousands of SL users that are going to Open Grid and OpenSim in one form or another. I don't know (no way to tell) how many of them still use SL (I myself daily bounce back and forth between the two). There is certainly an attraction to the low (or no) cost of OpenGrid... but it is buggy unstable. So one has to make the personal choice in what they're willing to accept as a trade-off. If a person can't possibly afford an SL sim and wants the experieince of running a sim... OpenSims are a viable alternative. But you have to understand there are major problems there. But then again, there are major problems on SL as well (as even LL is aware). You are right, some people cannot make the transition, have no desire to, have no need to. Others (such as my group) make the best of both worlds. Still others have abandoned SL entirely and switched to privately-owned grids. Others have tried, found it wasn't for them, and returned to SL. That's about as balanced a viewpoint as I can present. Each one has to decide for himself what is best in his situation. I have never encouraged anyone to leave Second Life. I did so myself at one time, then returned after 7 months when my group asked me to do so. Nothing is etched in concrete. I may rail and Linden Lab on these blogs and my own, but they're aware it's always with the goal of helping SL improve... no matter how blunt, frank and factual I may be in my statements. I have always considered earnest customer feedback-- positive and negative-- to be pure gold when it comes to company management. I will not say that OpenSim / OpenGrid is the answer for everyone. It is for some... so one simply has to evaluate his situation and decide whether that is the option he wants, or whether SL is better for his purposes, or whether to do as my group does and use both grids to meet our diverse goals.

Well, hate to seem contrary, but I'm gonna play the devil's advocate here. : D "Not the "old days", because the old old days were fairly decent". Yes, they were. There have always been bugs on SL, but I do remember days when the grid performed significantly better and more reliably... and customers were much more happy. Which is the point I think a lot of people are making. In recognition and respect for the work you did in forming that list above, let's examine those items individually. Such work deserves an honest and respectful response (at least I hope it comes across as respectful to you... I dunno so much about LL. ; ) Okay, yeah, admittedly useful: * Havok 7 * Ability to "Return All Objects" of a specified resident as an Estate-wide feature Negative / bad results: * Mono support -- along with major, major lag. Considered by many to be a signficant fail. * Multiple attachment points, multiple clothes layers/tattoos - (Viewer 2 only i believe)- yup, and that's the problem. 88% rejection rate on Viewer 2. Piddly stuff: * Group Text/Voice Moderation * Ability to change Friend Request message (major piddly) * Ability to drop Inventory on IM names (always could drop inventory to IM windows) * More information in About Land * Allow Dimple/Profile Cut for boxes, cylinders and prisms * Change the default cut increment from 0.05 to 0.025 (nice but not earth-shaking) * Addition of an "Ignore" button to friendship requests to keep online status private * Over a dozen translations added (not much use when CHAT doesn't work) Who gives a flip stuff: * New 16+ age limits on the way (again, YMMV) * Adult ratings/Zindra (YMMV) Ambigious stuff: * Ability to choose desired Maturity rating (huh?) * Mesh on its way (I'll judge that when I see it. Considering how extremely poorly sculpties were implemented, I'm not gonna hold my breath on Mesh) * Snowstorm (Of use to whom, exactly? This project had the nickname of "snowjob" almost the day it was announced. Not being snide, merely repeating the reaction of many on these blogs. Maybe it is useful... but ask 1000 random people on SL what they think of it... and see how many even know what it is. And seriously, is it useful at all? Only as useful as LL listens and takes it seriously I think... and I'm not going to hold my breath there. Not to mention that the majority of customers... both inexperienced and experienced... really will not contribute to that system-- mainly because they don't know how to adequately use a wiki-based system.) Now, if I were to counter the above unimpressive list with a list of negative things that have happened during the same period, that scale would overbalance and leave a hole in the table. Viewer 2.x, SL Marketplace, Homestead fiasco, Display.Names, AU, Teleport sim-wide dead-stop lag, chat failure, group notice failure, sim-wide dead-stop lag on changing clothing, extreme sound lag... need I go on? (This is just the tip of the iceberg) The main point of this is that the accomplishments are few, far between and relatively minor, wheras the major snafus, destructive decisions and total fails are major and significant. No one is saying LL doesn't do some positive things. They'd have to be total clodding lummoxes to not improve something. But I think you summed it up well when you said, "if it's gotten worse since the beginning of this year, my point is moot." In truth, it's been worse and getting worse for the last 2-3 years. Linden Lab keeps telling us how much better the grid is performing, but regular users know that simply is not reality. They like to quote "fewer sim crashes!" and that claim is undeniably true. And there is no doubt that sim crashes is a very, very important thing. But they have so crippled the system that very little actually works any more (I hate to keep coming back to CHAT and group notices, but geeminy... it's basic text data, yknow?). Basically Linden Lab has been able to make two valid claims: 1) Sim crashes are greatly reduced 2) Xstreet sales are up up up! Okay, let's look at that. Kudos on the sim crash thing. But how did they accomplish that? What corners did they cut and where did they cripple the board to achieve that goal? It doesn't do much good to have a new roof on the house when one had to slash the food budget to near starvation to accomplish that. Taking the pipes out of the kitchen to fix the pipes in the bathroom does not impress. We see so very many things on SL that are broken and don't work (that used to NOT be broken and used to work) that it's extremely frustrating. What are they doing over there anyway? Xstreet sales up up up? Of course they are. LL bought the company and tied sales directly into the main grid. For sales to not be up Xstreet management would have had to have been total morons. So yeah, that's kind of a given. But in doing that, they also bought and shut down OnRes, a system that many merchants used regularly. And now they're taking Xstreet offline, replacing it with an inferior and buggy SL Marketplace, and merchants are fuming. So they just totally negated any claims there. (Not to mention that while proudly flaunting Xstreet sales figures... they omitted how in-world sales fared during the same period. How many of those Xstreet sales simply replaced what would otherwise have been inworld sales?) With the extremely limited demographic and statistical information LL provides, it's very difficult for us to be sure of any such claims... especially in light of past LL "fudging" on figures. So again, I am honestly not trying to be negative. I'm simply pointing out reality. Sure, there are some things LL has done that have been nice. But as I said earlier, those things pale in number and significance to the negative things... and the current state of the grid. Again: if people were happy with what LL was doing... I don't believe these blogs would be so consistently and intensively negative... and I wouldn't think they'd be losing both customers and sims. I mean no disrespect to you Cybin, or to Apotheus either. You two have made respectful observations. I'm merely answering from the other side and hope nothing comes across as snide or rude. Just opposite sides of the discussion. I certainly respect your positions in these things... and find some of what both of you say to be fairly balanced... if perhaps maybe a bit "glass half full" in presentation. ; ) These days though, I fear large numbers of SL customers are feeling more like the glass is 9/10 empty.

Brief follow up on the Homestead issue: Linden Lab claimed they were raising prices because people were "abusing the purpose" of those sims. Many, many people found that claim to be blatantly fraudulent (as described above). Seriously, how is raising prices by 67% going to stop that abuse? Alternative solutions: The primary abuse was caused by clubs... so reduce the number of concurrent avatars to 20 people. That will put an end to that. Prim limits were already in place, so neither prims nor scripting would be involved in "abuse". It was simply excess avatars. All other LL claims have been fully debunked by some very serious blogs. Those "clubs" were not even close to what standard OpenSpace sims were used for. By and large those sims were private homes or small group "beauty" spots. There were ways to easily curb such abuse other than hiking prices from $75 to $125. So no, that entire thing was bogus. And to this day, LL has not once apologized for that abusive decision... nor made any effort to reverse the extremely negative effect such had on their board. Here's a big question to ask: when people shut down their sims by the thousands... why did Linden Lab remove not only those sims... but all archives of the builds there so that later, if people wanted to set back up, they would have that opportunity? The company destroyed not only the sims, but all backups of those sims. Then later when they "uh oh" updated their decision and decided to "only" charge $95... oops... you will of course have to totally rebuild your sims from scratch because we destroyed every archive that ever existed... not even following standard computer business procedure. This is a "good guy"? No, this was a case of company callous and unethical policy at its worst. I think few people would deny that Linden Lab under Kingdon was a fiasco of a ride. But was it all Kingdon? No. Show me where the company has tried to correct any of what he did since his ousting. He is a convenient scapegoat to be sure... but theyr'e still charging $125 for Homestead sims.

Hi Cybin. With most of your post I'll reluctantly agree... to an extent. But the likeness to the guy who keeps making bad decisions but is a "good guy" inside falls short. I don't perceive Linden Lab as being a "good guy" inside. In my experience they're unethical, dishonest and often employ propaganda and "miscommunication" to accomplish their goals. Good guys don't lie to their friends. In this case, the "guy's" decisions don't just harm him, they harm his family and friends. Since most of those decisions are intentional (ie, he's going to do it no matter how it affects anyone else, just because he wants to)... there's little excuse for his behavior. A guy who snookers his friends into making bad investments and then pulls the rug out from under them is not a "good guy". Cybin: "LL just had to make a tough choice. Such as Homesteads being created; although, the pricing of the two lower performance islands is another issue altogether. The change was necessary because people were abusing the intended usage of them." This statement stood out Cybin... becuase it's simply wrong (no insult. A lot of people were snookered in by this one). The OpenSpace / Homestead sim fiasco was pure profiteering greed, nothing else. Yes, some people were abusing the purpose of OpenSpace sims. Show me any area of Second Life that is not abused by someone. The answer to such was not betraying thousands of customers by bait-and-switch price gouging and hiking their prices by 67%. The result of that decision was the destruction of over 5,000 sims. That had nothing to do with "customers abusing sims". It had to do with Linden Lab trying to get more milk out of the cash cow. (I have numerous detailed, accurate expose blog references if you wish to research further into that matter). Not only that, but the company had the gall to fraudulently blame their customers for that decision rather than being open and honest about it. That was part of the legacy of the M. Linden regime. All evidence indicates that decision was made to make his new-CEO books sparkle before investors. It had nothing (and I mean nothing) to do with supposed "abuse" by customers; that was nothing but a propaganda patch, the ancient Linden Lab stunt of "blame the customer". They have used that trick ever since I joined the board. In truth, Linden Lab is the only company I have ever seen that was goofy enough to even try to blame their company issues on their customers; most companies would consider such to be a suicidal move. It's just not done-- even when the customers are to blame (but in these cases, they most certainly were not). When Philip decided to raise the price of sims from $195 to $295... he at least had the brains to immediately grandfather in all existing sims so that he wasn't blatantly ripping off existing customers. He also had the honesty to state they were doing so for marketing reasons... because they felt they could get that fee. People didn't like it... but at least he wasn't openly lying to us. In the Homestead debacle, we were openly lied to-- and we knew it. Sims weren't grandfathered, and that's why thousands of us shut them down. In the case of our group it wasn't that we didn't have the money; we simply refused to cave to what we believed (and still believe) to be bait-and-switch, extortionist business practices. What Linden Lab did was just plain wrong... and just plain dishonest. Bottom line, the OpenSpace fiasco (by all evidence we've examined) was a Mark Kingdon con game in which they tried to profiteer from $4 million worth of viable product by breaking their word to their customers and raising the price beyond and semblance of rationality. They only backtracked on that decision and grandfathered to "only" $95 (27% price hike) when they realized they'd already lost thousands of sims and stood to lose the rest if they continued with that plan. This was one case where LL customers actually had the guts to stand up and say NO!... something that IMO is all too rare. If more people were to vote with their pocketbook, we might see fewer of these customers-abusive decisions. There is a term that has crept up of late: sheeple. This is a unique brand of customer that takes just whatever LL has to throw at them because they're too afraid of "losing" whatever they perceive they have. That attitude enables this company-- and that's why their decisions are consistently self-focused and customer-abusive. And they are customer-abusive. Fortunately, not everyone is a sheeple, as the (aforementioned) migration to OpenSpace sims is revealing. There have been some SL heavy-hitters that have just pulled up stakes and moved. I'm not saying this to be anti-Linden Lab. I'm saying all these things because if Linden Lab doesn't drastically change their method of operation and decision making, that slow exodus shows every sign of turning into a flash flood. The water is up to maximum level behind the dam, the rain is still falling, the alarm sirens are sounding-- and this company seems fairly blind to all of that. I've never seen such widespread corporate denial. Forgive the wordy response. After 6 years online and seeing what LL has repeatedly done to their customers and our projects... feelings run deep. Linden Lab treats its customers as if we are a "necessary evil"... and fails to consider that we are just as much "investors" in this system as their stockholders-- even moreso. Those stockholders don't invest their time and skills and heart into this system; we do. To be totally left out of the decision-making process-- to have our needs and requests and demands ignored in favor of company "let's do this!" attitude... sets very badly. I sugar-coat nothing. I am a forgiving person by nature, but there comes a time where forgivness is not warranted. Linden Lab hit that level when they pulled the Homestead stunt (hey! We're going to offer you less for lots more money, and blame it on you!). Since then, the whole system and company has been on downhill fall. Their sales have been stagnant and even declining, customer ire and outrage is increasing dramatically, and system performance / function (despite company propaganda) is worse, not better, than it was two years ago. That's the reality of Second Life. There may indeed be individual Lindens who "care". There may be some who are trying to get the company on the right course. But it's fairly apparent that in general, this company has no idea what their customers need, want-- or will stand for.

Cybin: "It's these times when we hear from the opposition on the blogrums and it looks like everyone opposes a thing, but generally speaking, people tend to post less fervently when they're happy." That does indeed tend to be true. Your choice of wording in this is excellent: "less fervently". However, people do post when they're happy about something. I've given certain Lindens a pat on the back a time or two myself. It's not like people don't post when they're happy. Maybe (as you accurately state) not as fervently, but they post nonetheless. However, I've been watching these blogs for the last few months, and what we're seeing here I would classify (from a social standpoint) as pre-rebellion warning (to put it mildly). These blogs aren't just negative... they're vehement. Let me explain: back in 2005 I posted a couple of forums quite similar to what we're seeing in these blogs, regarding Linden Lab misdeeds (one involved stacking sims on server boxes and keeping that hidden from their customers, the other involved identifying sources of system lag when LL was blaming such on "customer content"). Those forums were detailed and above all, very accurate. At that time only one or two deep-core techs joined me, because only they were aware of what was going on. For the most part, people sided with Linden Lab, because at that time the things I was discussing (although true) were not yet widely apparent. There were even techs who were in extreme opposition to what I posted, because they hadn't run the tests we had and they were very pro-Linden Lab. Now, compare that with what we see today. I find that by the time I hear of a blog and get to it, there are already two dozen people who are raging at the announcement LL just made. Now-- it's not just me and a couple of informed techs that are talking about what's going on behind the scenes. Now people are widely aware of what is going on and they are stating very vocally they don't like it one bit. In truth, these things have been going on for years. They escalated precisely two years ago when a major LL decision forced the shutdown of 5000+ sims. They have continued to escalate since, and people are reacting to them as predicted. They're angry. Does Linden Lab "care"? I personally think all Linden Lab really "cares" about is their bottom line. There may be individual Lindens that seem to care... and some that actually do. But it's apparent that Management is on the "road to glory ride", and that all they really care about is becoming the next Facebook and their bottom line profit line. So I think what we're seeing here Cybin isn't customers unduly or unjustly dumping on Linden Lab, nor do I think it's a matter of "satisfied customers" not commenting. I think this is simple consequence for actions. If Linden Lab was making the right decisions... I believe customers by and large would be very supportive... and we would see such echoed in these blogs. It is obvious to me they are not making the right decisions, they are consistently making very bad decisions... and as a result of those decisions they are receiving warranted flack-- in spades. That's what happens when a company continually and repeatedly ignores customer wishes and needs. I don't think anyone can believably claim Linden Lab is leading us into a new age of VR... or even improving the grid. Most people I talk to these days believe LL is leading Second Life over a cliff. And I have to wonder, considering the prevalent negativity and vehemence on these blogs, the customers leaving SL, the sims shutting down-- that Linden Lab doesn't take all that more seriously.