Cool VL Viewer forum

OK... After much thinking about LL's latest TPV policy update, here is my take on the matter:

First of all, the method used to introduce the changes... You'll ask me, "what method ?", and indeed I should have said "the lack of any method", because throwing in new paragraphs in an existing policy without any official forewarning and announcement being done is quite a stupid thing to do and shows a total absence of any method !
You should remember also that when the TPV policy was first introduced, LL did provide forewarning and some time for users and TPV developers to react and contribute to its refining...
Indeed, proceeding as LL did with the latest policy changes was bound to trigger strong reactions (and much unneeded and exaggerated drama) from the community; makes me wonder if there's anybody left in charge for the communication at the Lab...

Now, let's look at each individual change:

I can't agree more on this one !!! I always advocated for the strict respect of the users' privacy and always refused to implement (even marginally) privacy threatening features in the Cool VL Viewer. I'm actually happy the Lab took this step.

Again, I agree to these rules, even if I have many doubts about why LL implemented them... I always refused to implement the viewer tag stuff and viewer identification advertizement (via avatar textures), and always found it a (minor but no less real) violation of the user's privacy: what a user runs as a viewer is no one's business (but for LL's, but they already know thanks to the viewer channel id transmitted at log in time). I also always found it funny to see how viewers such as mine were mistaken for LL's viewers (currently, the Cool VL Viewer v1.26.3 is identified as "viewer 2" by such systems: former versions would be identified as either SG v1.x or SG v2.0, depending on how it is implemented).
Now, the actual reason why LL is introducing these new rules is probably not user privacy... I'd bet that LL just got pissed off that their own viewer so blatantly appears to be used by a minority of SLers (even though the few Cool VL Viewer users involuntarily contributed to make it look like there were more official viewers users around: LL should thank me for this ).
But even if introduced for a bad reason, I still agree on these rules.

Now that's probably the worstly worded rule of the whole TPV policy (and it's not even the only badly worded one) !
What does it mean exactly ?
In fact, Oz practically admitted (by paraphrasing the rule himself) that by shared experiences, LL meant others' shared experiences. I.e. a feature that would only affect the TPV user (on their screen) won't fall under the rule: as long as their avatar looks the same for people using the latest official viewer, everything is fine...

Let's look as some TPV features and see how the rule applies:

RestrainedLove: that's the first thing that came to my mind. RLVs (Restrained Love Viewers) do provide a different shared experience to people using them (e.g. they can have their avatar "captured" by an object and bound to it; they can be force-teleported; their avatar can be "transformed", etc...). It also means that users without RLV do not have access to some areas on the grid or to some experience RLV users get (for example, some mazes only work if you got a RestrainedLove relay and viewer active): they definitely don't have the same "shared experience".
But, no, apparently, and if to believe Oz, this is not what LL meant by "shared experience" and RLVs are not endangered by that rule.

OK, so let's now see about Mesh deformer... This is the next big feature to come to viewers, something SL users and SL merchants want really bad !... Bad news, it falls under the 2.k. rule !... Why ?... Isn't it a viewer-side feature ?... Well, yes, but if merchants start providing mesh clothing items that would only fit with mesh deformer on, then people using a viewer without mesh deformer would not see the avatars wearing such clothing items right: "shared experience" is broken for them.
Oh, wait, good news, Oz said it'll be ok since mesh deformer is bound to be part of LL's own viewer features... Oh... wait, wait again !... What if LL change their mind and finally put their veto on mesh deformer ?... Well, then rule 2.k. will apply !!!

Now you are starting to understand why I find such a rule to not only be a badly worded rule (it should read "You must not provide any feature that alters others' shared experience of the virtual world in any way not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab") but also a stupid rule... But there's even more to it:

What about features such as multiple attachment per points and body physics ?... You probably know that these were first TPV hacked features (secondary attachment points and "wiggling boobs") before LL provided a proper implementation for them. Among those two features, the first did alter the shared experience for users of viewers not implementing them (with attachments not appearing rezzed where they should have, or "floating around").

To give some background about my own feelings towards such features, I must say that:
I personally refused to implement "wiggling boobs" because it caused FPS slow down, was a really, really dirty hack that could even cause shape wearable corruptions in some cases, and also because some (prudish but no less legit) objections were done by some users not wanting others to see their avatar with wiggling boobs without their own permission (it was similar to the "everyone naked" feature that made its way in a hacked viewer a long while ago...).
I also refused to encourage people to wear secondary attachments on illegal points, but I did provide a compatibility path with those wearing them, allowing their avatar to rez properly in the Cool VL Viewer.

Now, you could believe that I would agree with LL on 2.k. regarding these features... Well, no !... While I do admit it would have been much better if these features could have been first submitted to LL and approved by them before they would go into broadly used TPVs, I also perfectly know that LL is too slow, too timid and too conservative to accept such features in a timely manner (if at all). Plus, LL is clueless (as we all are !) about what feature will be a success or not. For example, the "wiggling boobs" were such a success that the first TPV to implement it (alas, it was the griefers' preferred viewer: Emerald) became an immense success and saw its users range broaden exponentially !
Had 2.k. been in force sooner, I bet we'd never have seen multiple attachments or body physics come to SL.
I therefore think that, while such hacks can temporarily "break" the shared experience of some of the SLers, they are still acceptable as test beds for future, properly implemented features; what I would like LL to do in such cases is to first observe the result of the implementation of the hack (clearly saying to TPV developers: ok, we are allowing it for now, but beware, we can change our mind depending on how it will be received by the users), then (and only then) to tell the rule about it (go or no-go) which would then apply immediately to all TPVs.

You see, LL must face it... Because they are too big, they are too slow and too far away form their very users' needs and wishes to properly foresee what feature should make its way or not into their viewer and what priority it should be given. Granted, TPV developers are no clairvoyant people either, but the sheer number of TPVs makes them perfect testing beds for new features.

Also, about "shared experience" breakage... there's much worst than the secondary attachment points... With viewers on the grid ranging from old, alpha-less, tattoo-less, physics-less, mesh-less v1.23.5 viewers (or even v1.1x: they still work on and can connect to the grid !) to the latest LL viewer, there's a whole lot of users that don't see the same things in SL (and then some that don't see many things any more in some places). So, the "not provided by or accessible to users of the latest released Linden Lab" screams hypocrisy...


Come on, LL... You can do it !... Just remove that stupid 2.k rule, or negotiate its contents and wording with us, TPV developers, who often know better than you about SLers needs and wishes.

Remember the true LL motto: "Your World, Your Imagination"
Let's just do it !

PS: comments welcome, but please, let's not make it a flame war like I saw in some forums...

Henri this is an excellent summary !

Clear, concise & to the point, best of all "Drama Free", which I noticed several other's are leveraging the "Drama Factor". I feel that LL's current position will only further reduce the innovation potential that TPV's bring to the table.

One of the major point of LL putting out the OpenSource viewer codebase was a stimulation excercise to bring new ideas, enhancements, features & functionailty to light that the Lab could benefit from. This all occured because LL itself ralized that it had gone stale internally and IBM suggested that external stimulation such as TPV could & would generate new ideas, concepts & lead to further innovation. This also transcends to their server system where OpenSimulator has served as an "idea pool" for innovation which LL also took advantage of... On one side, LL wins with free ideas & no cost debugging but on the other side if a TPV causes support/maintenance issues then LL had some justification. (by maintenance, I'm referring to support tickets, asset/inventory recovery & fixes, for example the emerald fake attachment points which resulted in a lot of extra support issues for LL)

So what are the options for TPV's ? continue to innovate and meet user needs ?? How can this be accomplished the current policy and where is the line drawn as to what / how it affects "stock LL Viewer client experience" because ultimately that is their limitation, yet as you point out they are still allowing old viewer access which lack extensive capabilities in comparison to V3 base, in conflict with their own policy.

WS

I only can second what Henry said.

I think I understand why Henri see it as he does, but I’ll disagree with this point. There is a method. Having lived through the Healthcare Bill passing in the US Congress I can see great similarities. The Speaker of the House, Rep. Pelosi, stated at one point Americans had to wait to read the bill until after it was passed and signed into law. If anyone thinks there was no plan, strategy, and well orchestrated process in play there… I’ll never be able to convenience them. I think in Congress and in the Lab there was a great deal of ‘method’ at work. I know from other TPV Dev’s that they new tags were going away as much as 3 months in advance, which suggests the Lab was planning this.

The word ‘stupid’ is subjective… however it is an appropriate adjective as Henri used it. No one has accused the US Congress or the Lab of brilliance in handling the public. I think it a bit harsh, but however I would say it, the meaning would be similar.

I suspect many of us disagree with the method and process. But, until we offer a better workable solution I suspect we will be stuck with it.



I agree with Henri. But, what could they have done that would not have created blow back and drama from some segment of the user base? People once complained about sculpties and now mesh. People complain about updating the viewers. No matter how often the Lab says they WILL NOT BLOCK viewer 1 and continue to allow 1.1 and 1.23 viewers to connect, people rant about the Lab’s plans to block those users. Another segment of the user base rants at the Lab for not blocking the old viewers. The Lab can’t win. Why does anyone think it is any different in this situation?

I often wonder who is running the PR and communications for the Lab. Or as Henri suggests, ANYONE?



To me this is unjust. Oz explained why the Lab made the privacy change on tags (about 25 minutes into the audio.) New users were being harassed for not using a TPV. For the Lab handling abuse reports and customer service queries this had to be annoying. That they also get yelled at for poor customer service had to be adding insult to injury as they spent time on tag-abuse.

The Lab is focused on changing the new users’ experience. That viewer tags were resulting in new users being harassed had to rocket the problem to the top of their fix-it-priority list.

The poor behavior of some residents has obviously contributed to this change in policy. Oz has said and all I’ve seen him do and say, while not all that much, paints a consistent picture that he and many in the Lab don’t care which viewer residents use. So, to imply he is spinning the reasons is an extraordinary claim and requires extraordinary proof. To slander/libel someone without good evidence is just drama. To defame anyone without good evidence is hurtful and violates most principals of free speech and the responsibilities that go with it.



That may be true. But, there is no way to know. It may have taken longer or we may have never gotten avatar physics. What we think may have happened under other conditions is speculation. Condemning someone based on speculation is not rational. (I think you were going to rob that bank so we are locking you up.)

I understand why people believe it to be true. I believe seeing the users’ reaction and adoption of avatar physics changed the priority at the Lab. But, that is a belief and speculation on my part. So, if I take Henri’s bet, we have no way to settle it. These are the types of things that lead to drama.



Too big is relative. Too slow is also relative. They are too slow for me. But, when one starts looking through the JIRA stats (scroll down to graph – look at other projects) and trying to compare the Lab to other software houses things become more objective. It’s hard to say whether the Lab is better or worse than other companies. I just can’t find good data on other similar companies’ performance for a real comparison.

What I can find is: people in various game support forums bitching about how slow the companies are in fixing and adding things and how poorly they listen to users. If one chooses to believe that empirical information, the Lab is on par with other gaming companies.

Qarl is taking longer than I expected to get Mesh Deformer changes out. So, he too is too slow for me. I want stuff now. However, I doubt Qarl feels he is slow.

The idea the Lindens are too far from their customers is true of most companies. I have no doubt it is true the Lindens do not understand the use of SL as well as many, if not the majority, of users. But, the same can be said of us not understanding the programming and operational complexities of the SL system.

The Lab has a task like figuring out what the opposite sex wants. They are aliens from another planet. So, while I think a significant part of the responsibility for good communication is on the Lab’s side, we are part of the problem too. A significant part of users’ communication is based on a lack of actual information (facts) and heavily steeped in speculation. In many ways those people are like dealing with an abusive lover or spouse.

Listening to users/customers is an ongoing issue in software development. When THERE.COM failed (its back) interviews showed managers in the end decided they had not listened to their users well enough. It’s a inherent part of software development.

I think trying to listen to SL users among all the rants, uninformed posts, agendas, drama, ad hominem attacks, egos, flames, trolls, griefers, and more has to be extremely frustrating. That the Lab’s employees listen to us and deal with us at all is likely only due to the fact it is a business necessity. …and that is not completely fair because there are Lindens that do enjoy SL and working with the users. But, you get the point…

I like Henri's post, with the exceptions of couple of points I think are unjust. I added this because I think most of us are ignoring our contributions to many of the problems about which we criticize the Lab.

@Nalates

Thanks for your comments. I'm not going to reply to each of your arguments, because they are mostly a question of how different you and I feel towards LL. We are probably both half right and half wrong about it.

I will however add this: when it comes to try and convince people (here, both the TPV developers and users) that a new rule you are introducing is for the good of the whole community, you'd better be ready to explain beforehand what rule you want to implement and why, and to listen to the objections that will invariably come out, amending the rule (if only just the wording to address misunderstandings) before putting it into place. This is what I call a method (and you will remark that I didn't say strategy, because one possible but pretty uninformed strategy is to do without a method !).

I do acknowledge that SL is LL's property and that they can do as they wish with it (including screw it up for everyone), but if they still want to see their user base contribute and do so in a constructive (and, for LL, profitable) way, then they'd better be listening and communicating properly with us all !

This is the panic effect. If you go to a crowded location (do not actually do this, you might spend two weeks in jail), try to look official, and shout there: "DO NOT PANIC. THERE IS NO REASON TO PANIC. NOONE WILL BE HARMED"... what do you think is gonna happen?

Actually that's wrong. You cannot connect to Second Life with an out of date Linden viewer, but you sure can using a similarly out of date TPV. Because Linden viewer incurs support overheard, TPV does not. You must expect, Linden 1.23 will be blocked from logging in eventually, given the prior practice this basically goes without saying. Not that it affects us anyhow, just thought i'd mention it.



Actually i think he's apologized for being slow recently.



Rumor has it: lawyers.

As to the actual topic, i think we can continue as prior, if someone can invent a thing, he should. Then can make lab face the fact, which will force them to either face an embarassment of exerting force on a viewer project with a PR-unfriendly reason, or actively implement a rivalling and better implemented (because server side assisted) system themselves. So in a way, we can turn this limitation for us into an extra responsibility of theirs.

I'm calling BS on this one. At no time have I witnessed anyone being harassed or discriminated against for using one of the Viewer 2 GUI-based viewers. I have, however, placed one person on mute who had the following in her profile:



Obviously this person is a horse's ass and deserves to be placed on mute. No big deal, no social loss. But come on. You're telling me that simply over one's choice of viewer, people are being mistreated? Something smells fishy and this time it's not Ann Coulter's underwear drawer. If I had to hazard a guess, I'd bet that any actions taken against these viewer snobs were deliberately and maliciously provoked. I know of one region, Deshima, that puts out a notecard accusing people who use V1-GUI viewers of lagging out their sim -- never mind the thousands of running scripts, sculpts, and megaprims used in the region; no, it HAS to be those "antiquated" viewers. The problem with this line of thinking, of course, is that -- as Henri pointed out -- there is diminishing difference between those viewers that use the V1 GUI and those that operate using a variant of the official Linden Lab GUI. It's dishonest for people to claim they've been harassed simply for their choice of viewer, without citing any evidence, and without allowing for the likelihood that any actions that may have taken place might have been provoked.

Yes, you can !... Just change the viewer channel (example: secondlife --channel "deprecated viewer") and it will connect.

Yup, I still have a very old version SL-1.18.5.3 that still can connect. ^.^

Not guaranteed that everything is working though. And depending on HOW old the clients are they don't support stuff like the additional attachment points, multiple texture layers, alpha layer, physics layer, creation of up to 64x64m prims, http get inventory for textures or assets etc. pp.

Deprecated viewers will not show multiple attachments (only one attachment per point would show) and would not allow you to wear alphas, tattoos or physics (and they would be unable to render any avatar using Physics: such avatars would be "Ruthed" or clouded). They would have no trouble rendering multiple layers or alphas/tattoos worn by others, since this is all "baked" by others' viewers and only that baked texture (recovered from the sim server) is used to render their avatars. Inventory and texture fetches (including map tiles which are now HTTP) would go the UDP route (the corresponding services are still working in SL). Even the old search would work...
If you can find *really* old viewers, you could also miss the sculpties and voice support, since those are relatively recent (2007) in the SL history.