Re: Opensim-users Digest, Vol 20, Issue 41

classic Classic list List threaded Threaded
1 message Options
Reply | Threaded
Open this post in threaded view
|

Re: Opensim-users Digest, Vol 20, Issue 41

tymail@frontiernet.net
[hidden email] wrote:

> Send Opensim-users mailing list submissions to
> [hidden email]
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
> [hidden email]
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
> [hidden email]
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of Opensim-users digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin) (Ralf Haifisch)
>    2. Re: Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin) (Charles Krinke)
>    3. post from dev-mailing list:  badumnasim (Ralf Haifisch)
>    4. Re: Groups in Opensim (Robert Klein)
>    5. Re: Groups in Opensim (Charles Krinke)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 13:28:02 +0200
> From: "Ralf Haifisch" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
> Austin)
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <00bd01c9b5e1$9502fd80$bf08f880$@biz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Charles,
>
>
> That is where i did like your XMPP approach.  
>
> I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they have
> been playing around with telepathy framework.
>
> My thought was:
> - diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and distribution
> groups (communication)
> - doing security groups "SL style" to enable as much user as possible the
> migration SL --> open source
>   While still having the ability to e.g. introduce "super groups" (group in
> group) for new viewer.
> - doing distribution groups with jabber etc...  
>   Means new viewer (maybe realxtend) whil have this ability build in - but
> everyone could use a stand alone
>   Client.  Event without a viewer, like IRC.  Use it on travel/at work.
> Pass the firewall via http wrapping.
>
>
> I thought this would be a nice step towards future, while still keeping the
> sl-viewer user aboard for a while (let say, next 6 month are important)
>
> So:  100% agreed targets with moving on...  I am a strong 3D web enthusiast
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
> Austin)
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Ralf:
>
> Yes, I have similar joy and angst at each of these discussions and
> decisions.
>
> I think the value we can bring on this mailing list is to express some ideas
> in a helpful way as you have done. By doing this, we can influence the
> thoughts in a positive direction of those, like Adam, and others, who are
> implementing group stuff right now.
>
> Having some legacy connection to our hated (and beloved) SecondLife is
> important.
>
> But, ... of equal importance, is figuring out how to move off into the
> future with some changes that will be of more long term benefit as we get
> closer to the 3D internet.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)
>
> +1
>
> It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
> Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.
>
> I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
> while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
> implemented
> technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
> nice
> for single user or organization with not governance needs.
>
> So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
> skype.
>
> Using https-tunnel e.g.  
>
> Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
> with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.
>
> But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
> be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
> able to talk that protocol.  
>
> Wouldn?t brake compatibility where it hurts.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
> From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> ... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,
>>    
>
>
> I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
> individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
> external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
> 9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
> distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 10:04:55 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
> Austin)
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> As I recall, we do have an IRC module, but it has fallen out of interest in testing in recent months. Perhaps we need two strategies.
>
> The first might be to start testing the IRC module again and work on its problems.The issue with the IRC module has been that it decreases stability in the region and the region freezes. Also, some have a problem with the extremely long prefixes it generates.
>
> It may be that our IRC module actually works better then we perceive, but since no one is using it, we just dont know anymore.
>
> The second might be to use that module as a model for an XMPP module.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Sunday, April 5, 2009 4:28:02 AM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)
>
> Dear Charles,
>
>
> That is where i did like your XMPP approach.  
>
> I guess the rex-chaps can tell a bit more about their experience, they have
> been playing around with telepathy framework.
>
> My thought was:
> - diving functionality into security groups (collaboration) and distribution
> groups (communication)
> - doing security groups "SL style" to enable as much user as possible the
> migration SL --> open source
>   While still having the ability to e.g. introduce "super groups" (group in
> group) for new viewer.
> - doing distribution groups with jabber etc...  
>   Means new viewer (maybe realxtend) whil have this ability build in - but
> everyone could use a stand alone
>   Client.  Event without a viewer, like IRC.  Use it on travel/at work.
> Pass the firewall via http wrapping.
>
>
> I thought this would be a nice step towards future, while still keeping the
> sl-viewer user aboard for a while (let say, next 6 month are important)
>
> So:  100% agreed targets with moving on...  I am a strong 3D web enthusiast
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ------------------------------
>
>
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 14:28:45 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Charles Krinke <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai
>     Austin)
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Dear Ralf:
>
> Yes, I have similar joy and angst at each of these discussions and
> decisions.
>
> I think the value we can bring on this mailing list is to express some ideas
> in a helpful way as you have done. By doing this, we can influence the
> thoughts in a positive direction of those, like Adam, and others, who are
> implementing group stuff right now.
>
> Having some legacy connection to our hated (and beloved) SecondLife is
> important.
>
> But, ... of equal importance, is figuring out how to move off into the
> future with some changes that will be of more long term benefit as we get
> closer to the 3D internet.
>
> Charles
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> From: Ralf Haifisch <[hidden email]>
> To: [hidden email]
> Sent: Saturday, April 4, 2009 1:12:55 PM
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion (Ai Austin)
>
> +1
>
> It is very important to use a intelligent open framework AND NOT any
> Approach that needs fixed ports etc. like the stone old voice in SL.
>
> I did discuss that with lindens and lost the only realy interested company
> while the hype time (3D is only a 0,1% of my Rl job atm) because the
> implemented
> technology was not acceptable from a firewall/routing perspective.  It is
> nice
> for single user or organization with not governance needs.
>
> So it must by (from transport) something that is a holepuncher, similar to
> skype.
>
> Using https-tunnel e.g.  
>
> Maybe it would be a nice chance to do the security groups "SL style", so one
> with a SL viewer could build/interact inworld.
>
> But if we use Jabber/XXMP for the communication part, a SL client would only
> be limited In group communication - BUT could still use a second software
> able to talk that protocol.  
>
> Wouldn?t brake compatibility where it hurts.
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Date: Sat, 04 Apr 2009 10:32:00 +0100
> From: Ai Austin <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups Implementation Discussion
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
>
> Charles Krinke <[hidden email]> wrote:
>  
>> ... I suppose we could go in the IRC or XMPP/Jabber direction,
>>    
>
>
> I would really encourage a Jabber/XMPP approach for group (and indeed
> individual) which open up all sorts of opportunities to link to
> external messengers, buddy systems with geo-location (think of the
> 9opportuinities for in world visualisation of collaborative and
> distributed teams), intelligent communications things too. Ai
>
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: https://lists.berlios.de/pipermail/opensim-users/attachments/20090405/7af37adb/attachment-0001.html 
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 19:11:36 +0200
> From: "Ralf Haifisch" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: [Opensim-users] post from dev-mailing list:  badumnasim
> To: <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID: <010e01c9b611$93d6ffd0$bb84ff70$@biz>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Heho,
>
> Thanks Adam and Gustovo for first infos.
>
> I moved this from dev to users to collect the audience for testing, see
> later.
>
>
> This post should not address security issues - maby open another thread.  I
> would suggest to wait until we have some more results and maybe spoken to
> the badumna people.   :-)
>
>
> the link is http://www.badumna.com/badumna/badumnasim.html 
>
> .Net 3.5 SP1 is needed.
>
>
> since it is a client load balancer - it use a proxy.
>
> All scenarios of proxyserver only make sense if several people are accessing
> the same target (think of suid , isa or any web proxy you maybe have @work).
>
> If we want to test drive it, we should do a test scenario with some people.
>
>
> Preparing the server holding opensim with network statistics , e.g. nagios.
>
> Have a region where no one else is around - but enough content.
>
> Run 1, native
>
> Run 2, with badumnasim
>
> Clear cache of all before each run.
>
>
> Looks interesting to me - so I would like to run a test at the next weekend
> if I get some people. (I will prepapre a server)
>
> If you are interested, download and install badumnasim and better email me
> directly since I am on business travel next days.   Ralf (at)
> ralf-haifisch.biz
>
>
>
> Cheers,
> Ralf
>
>
> ------------------------------
> Date: Sat, 4 Apr 2009 06:14:24 -0400
> From: "Frisby, Adam" <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] BadumnaSim
> To: "[hidden email]" <[hidden email]>
> Message-ID:
> <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"
>
> I'd say you probably need a better sample size. 36/37 packets isn't
> conclusive. Try 2000+.
>
> Adam
>
> From: [hidden email]
> [mailto:[hidden email]] On Behalf Of Gustavo Alberto
> Navarro Bilbao
> Sent: Saturday, 4 April 2009 2:51 AM
> To: [hidden email]
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-dev] BadumnaSim
>
>  Perhaps a union with the Grider ?. I tested Badumna in our server with
> PingTester and really noticed the improvement
>
>
> withot Badumna
>
> Sent:       36
> Received:   36
> Lost:       0
> Loss Rate:  0.00 %
> Min Time:   62 ms
> Max Time:   375 ms
> Avg Time:   113 ms
> Avg TTL:    117
>
> With Badumna
>
> Sent:       37
> Received:   37
> Lost:       0
> Loss Rate:  0.00 %
> Min Time:   59 ms
> Max Time:   298 ms
> Avg Time:   96 ms
> Avg TTL:    117
>
>
> 2009/4/4 Frisby, Adam <[hidden email]<mailto:[hidden email]>>
>
> I'd just like to do a quick 'look at this' on the forge - the guys who
> designed it asked me about how to promote the idea to OS users, and I
> suggested the forge. They have put the code up in the SVN here, so go take a
> look.
>
>
>
> Basically it's a client-centric P2P load balancer.
>
>
>
> Packets which are destined to multiple users get sent via a proxying P2P
> layer which then gets each client to replicate it to its peers, rather than
> relying on the central sim to do so. Their initial results look promising
> (about a 50% boost in capacity). Obviously there are some security concerns
> too, but I think it's a nifty thing worth taking a look at.
>
>
>
> Adam
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 4
> Date: Sun, 5 Apr 2009 14:03:38 -0700 (PDT)
> From: Robert Klein <[hidden email]>
> Subject: Re: [Opensim-users] Groups in Opensim
> To: [hidden email]
> Message-ID: <[hidden email]>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
>
>
> +1 Diva, I totally agree with getting these tools off the region server.
>
> -Robert
>
>
> I don't particularly care about the details of the group feature design,
> and, as with everything else, I don't think there's "one right thing".
> In fact, I think this is one of those features where variety and
> competition are the right approach.
> My only concern is the architecture. All social networking stuff (IM,
> friends, groups and others) should be completely removed from region
> servers. They don't belong there, it's just wrong. Move all that stuff
> to interactions between the client and those services directly. We
> already have way too much of it in region servers, which should be moved
> out, let's not have any more of that. This is where I think we should
> break from OpenSim out-of-the-box being an SL clone to it being
> something else that's much better.
>
> marcel verhagen wrote:
>  
>> Yeah groups support is a pre.
>>
>> But we should learn from the groups mistake secondlife has made.
>>
>> Think it was a mistake they use the groups for object permissions AND
>> also for community targets.
>>
>> So I think there should be different group systems for different use.
>>
>> One groups system for comminity building with im, notices, polls,
>> roles and groups profiles. Without a max group limit.
>>
>> And one group system for the object permission with an groups
>> inventory in it. Withouth the community building things. These object
>> group system should have a max limit.
>> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> Opensim-users mailing list
>> [hidden email]
>> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>>  
>>    
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> Opensim-users mailing list
> [hidden email]
> https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users
>
>
>
>  

Charles has alot to say, I agree with quite a bit of it, but as a person
with a degree and
20 years experience on the web, I would have to say that all this mumbo
jumbo need be
put into something that is offered a solution. So far, my gosh the
issues and the uncoordinated
ideas, let's try to get something together here for crying out loud. It
took two years to even have
OpenSimulator clouds.

Tracy Welles


_______________________________________________
Opensim-users mailing list
[hidden email]
https://lists.berlios.de/mailman/listinfo/opensim-users