Common sense
|
Ssinss Iredell
Registered User
Join date: 12 Aug 2006
Posts: 4
|
05-16-2007 11:32
First let me say that adding new things is great. Some of the new ideas are awsome and some are just straight out stupid.
BUT common sense says if you have more than a dozen broken or half working game issues that you should fix THOSE FIRST and add the new semi working things once the rest of your game is less buggy. This is common sense used in any business. Voice is a serious waste of time right now when people are paying such HUGE amounts of money for semi working services, Lindens.. whats up?
|
Cozmo Yoshikawa
Registered User
Join date: 19 May 2007
Posts: 27
|
problems - possible solutions
05-27-2007 08:03
Couldn't agree more,
I for one am finding SL's current state of affairs flat out UNUSABLE. Search is broken today, cannot teleport anywhere, and even if I could I would just end up dealing with the pathetic greifer scum that occupy the sandboxes.
Some thoughts * If an avatar exits the sandbox, have a script kill all objects with that avatars name in the "creator" or "owner" fields after a 15 minute period
*fix the abuse report tool. Its impossible to report abuse if the resident-name selector does not work at ALL. The widget refuses to send the abuse report if the field is blank.
*If you limit no-scripting zones to 20m, fine. Then at least ensure all prims created from objects flying overhead cannot fall beneath this barrier. It's fine to consider the skies open for dogfights and flying drones, but at least make an invisible shield to separate these two distinct zones.
*Have a single click button that enables any avatar to simply click on an offending object. (AHHH's, or anything with eyestalk scripts). If you find a large number of distinct avatars clicking the same object within a set period, you can use that as the discriminator to inspect for abuse and/or harassment. Do you really need to hand-inspect every single abuse report that comes in? Do you not realize that by forcing individuals to go through the extra effort to type a description that you are limiting the number of people who will report in the first place, AND your ability to keep up with the flood?
*Give a parcel setting that sets the maximum spawn rate of any object with a given object name.
*Consider a system signature that, for every script within the sim running a sensor that detects AGENT types, also gives weight to that object based on its mass. Higher mass objects following people around are likely to cause more headaches then small animals.
*In addition to this suggestion, I just spent 10 minutes trying to escape from a very large battleship in a public sandbox that some jerk placed an eyestalk script in. Why not have the system notice when a large volume entirely encloses an avatar? This may well detect caging scripts as well.
*I remember back in the good ole days of active worlds. By simply holding the shift key, my avatar became what you SL'ers call "phantom". I could pass through anything, which made world navigation significantly easier. Consider enabling this as a parcel parameter, and definitely turn it on for sandboxes to avoid annoying pushers and caging containers.
*For sandboxes, have everyone spawn within the same place on teleport, but kill any objects that fall within a certain radius.
These are items that I came up with after a mere 4 days of headaches, and the solutions seem obvious to me, however I recognize that from a technical standpoint changing of any code is difficult. The least the Lindens could do is answer their phones and actually respond to phone tickets, as they promised they would.
Please fix SL. This is terrible, and I am beginning to consider myself fortunate for not buying a premium service status yet.
|
Tybalt Brando
Catalyst
Join date: 25 Dec 2006
Posts: 347
|
05-27-2007 08:50
Where have I seen this thread before?
|
Cozmo Yoshikawa
Registered User
Join date: 19 May 2007
Posts: 27
|
05-27-2007 09:47
That in of itself suggests a lot.
I must be new around here.....
|
Kevin Susenko
Voice Mentor
Join date: 11 Jul 2006
Posts: 198
|
05-27-2007 10:07
From: someone * If an avatar exits the sandbox, have a script kill all objects with that avatars name in the "creator" or "owner" fields after a 15 minute period Not a bad idea. Would need a new script function to be written though, because as far as I know objects can't delete objects that it didn't create. From: someone *fix the abuse report tool. Its impossible to report abuse if the resident-name selector does not work at ALL. The widget refuses to send the abuse report if the field is blank. According to LL in this case set the resident name to Govenor Linden then explain in the details field. From: someone *If you limit no-scripting zones to 20m, fine. Then at least ensure all prims created from objects flying overhead cannot fall beneath this barrier. It's fine to consider the skies open for dogfights and flying drones, but at least make an invisible shield to separate these two distinct zones. I'm not sure what good this would do 20m is still pretty low. One complaint I do have about the no-scripting is that it breaks all my HUDs too. It'd be nice if there were some LSL commands that were still available to HUDs regardless of whether the area is no-scripting. From: someone *Have a single click button that enables any avatar to simply click on an offending object. (AHHH's, or anything with eyestalk scripts). If you find a large number of distinct avatars clicking the same object within a set period, you can use that as the discriminator to inspect for abuse and/or harassment. Do you really need to hand-inspect every single abuse report that comes in? Do you not realize that by forcing individuals to go through the extra effort to type a description that you are limiting the number of people who will report in the first place, AND your ability to keep up with the flood? This sort of group mentality kind of thing may be fine for places like Digg where the worst that can happen is a story may not make the main page, but this could easily be abused on SL. So, yes, they do need to look at every abuse report individually. Whether they have the ability to do so in a timley matter is another issue. I've never had to file an abuse report before, so I don't know how it works myself. But I've seen reports of it being anywhere from really good to really poor. From: someone *Give a parcel setting that sets the maximum spawn rate of any object with a given object name. There already is a limit, but don't suppose it'd hurt to make it a parcel setting. From: someone *Consider a system signature that, for every script within the sim running a sensor that detects AGENT types, also gives weight to that object based on its mass. Higher mass objects following people around are likely to cause more headaches then small animals. I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. From: someone *In addition to this suggestion, I just spent 10 minutes trying to escape from a very large battleship in a public sandbox that some jerk placed an eyestalk script in. Why not have the system notice when a large volume entirely encloses an avatar? This may well detect caging scripts as well. *I remember back in the good ole days of active worlds. By simply holding the shift key, my avatar became what you SL'ers call "phantom". I could pass through anything, which made world navigation significantly easier. Consider enabling this as a parcel parameter, and definitely turn it on for sandboxes to avoid annoying pushers and caging containers. Nice to see someone else from AW here. The phantom av idea is nice. There's already ways to kind of do that, though. If you're in an area where you can build, just build a box, sit on it, then drag yourself and the box out of where ever you're stuck. For caging objects you can get a shield. From: someone *For sandboxes, have everyone spawn within the same place on teleport, but kill any objects that fall within a certain radius. Not sure I understand what you mean here.
_____________________
CPU: Intel Core 2 Duo E6400 (Overclocked - 2.8GHz) | Mobo: EVGA nForce 680i SLI | GPU: XFX nVidia GeForce 8800 GTX 768mb GDDR3 | Memory: 4gb DDR2 PC5300 667MHz Dual Channel | PSU: Antec Neo HE 550w | Sound: SoundBlaster X-Fi Xtrememusic | HDD: 950gb total SATA3 | OS: Windows Vista Ultimate 64-bit
|
Cozmo Yoshikawa
Registered User
Join date: 19 May 2007
Posts: 27
|
05-27-2007 11:01
For the last point, I mean have a safe zone in the center spawn point of every sandbox. Currently there are griefers simply leaving cages at the teleport orgin, so newbs will just teleport in and be instantaneously trapped. In another instance, someone actually placed a whole storefront right on "ground zero, AW terminology" with "buy me" messages everywhere, and it was impossible to exit the trapped space.
As for sitting on boxes to escape from things, it seems as if the Lindens are going to let that hack slide, and yes, it is a hack, then why not an avatar functionality.
For no-script zones, I personally like the idea of blocking specific functions. The scripting language could somehow be revamped so that scriptwriters could set "require" headers in their code to indicate which functions the script absolutely needs to run. Some scripts could make use of featuresets that are only the "icing on the cake".
Afterall, we already have "camera tracking" permissions and such, so why not simply expand this set.
|
Draco18s Majestic
Registered User
Join date: 19 Sep 2005
Posts: 2,744
|
05-27-2007 11:55
From: Kevin Susenko I'm not quite sure I understand what you mean. Mass of an object is I believe based on the number of prims. Other possibility is the size of those prims, eitherway. What he's talking about is Follower Scripts. Most small things have relatively few prims, whereas large things need more and more prims to either a) look good b) be anything at all. Imagine a battleship 50 meters long following you around the sandbox. Now imagine the same battleship following you around the sandbox very very very imperceptibly slowly.
|
Cozmo Yoshikawa
Registered User
Join date: 19 May 2007
Posts: 27
|
05-27-2007 13:55
It's just as annoying as, say a 6 foot long penis following me around, but in the case of the battleship I can't build anything because it simply surrounds me. So, Im wondering if the option to somehow command other objects to piss off is appropriate.
Such a command could temporarily exclude you from the output of llSensors functions, but could this break anything legitimate?
Certainly, in the case of the giant penis, a simple follower script can be quite harassing, especially to newbs in public places.
|
Johanna Hyacinth
Disgruntled Linux user
Join date: 6 Dec 2006
Posts: 47
|
05-28-2007 04:52
From: Ssinss Iredell BUT common sense says if you have more than a dozen broken or half working game issues that you should fix THOSE FIRST and add the new semi working things once the rest of your game is less buggy. Linden Lab have said that around 70% of their programming staff are dedicated to bug fixes, which is already a much higher percentage than in most software houses. You're saying it should be 100%, and that new development should simply stagnate? From: someone This is common sense used in any business. Based on every company I've ever worked for, this is simply not true. Every technology-oriented company is constantly developing new ideas, even if their existing products aren't 100% perfect. Every piece of software I use which has a regular upgrade cycle has the majority of its developers working on the new version, while a smaller staff (much less than 70%!) maintains the old version and fixes bugs (in fact, the company I work for has a staff of THREE programmers who fix bugs, while perhaps fifty to sixty work on new features or entirely new products). As to "any business", do you really think scientists aren't exploring new frontiers because they haven't come up with a cure for cancer yet? That oil companies aren't searching for new drilling sites because they haven't exhausted the existing ones yet? That construction companies aren't starting new contracts because all their existing buildings aren't completed? I apologize for going off on you, but I'm really sick of the "please stop adding features until every single bug is fixed" line that pops up like clockwork on the blog every time something new is announced. Well, I like new features. And I'm glad we didn't have to wait until 2015 to get sculpted prims just because alpha textures still don't sort properly.
|
Kascha Matova
Bus Bench Supermodel
Join date: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 342
|
05-29-2007 15:33
From: Johanna Hyacinth Linden Lab have said that around 70% of their programming staff are dedicated to bug fixes, which is already a much higher percentage than in most software houses. You're saying it should be 100%, and that new development should simply stagnate? Based on every company I've ever worked for, this is simply not true. Every technology-oriented company is constantly developing new ideas, even if their existing products aren't 100% perfect. Every piece of software I use which has a regular upgrade cycle has the majority of its developers working on the new version, while a smaller staff (much less than 70%!) maintains the old version and fixes bugs (in fact, the company I work for has a staff of THREE programmers who fix bugs, while perhaps fifty to sixty work on new features or entirely new products). As to "any business", do you really think scientists aren't exploring new frontiers because they haven't come up with a cure for cancer yet? That oil companies aren't searching for new drilling sites because they haven't exhausted the existing ones yet? That construction companies aren't starting new contracts because all their existing buildings aren't completed? I apologize for going off on you, but I'm really sick of the "please stop adding features until every single bug is fixed" line that pops up like clockwork on the blog every time something new is announced. Well, I like new features. And I'm glad we didn't have to wait until 2015 to get sculpted prims just because alpha textures still don't sort properly. Although I respect your viewpoint, I am afraid I'll have to beg to differ on virtually every point you've made here... Yes development in most shops continues in the absence of a perfect release candidate. You may even be right in terms of the split of work between new development and bug fixing. What you do not take into account is the fact that most companies make correct use of the development cycle and take a significant amount of time in testing and debugging at the beta level before release. People do not test functionality that is known to be incomplete or buggy enough to suggest late-alpha status at the production level. Furthermore, you cannot simply soldier on with development (and more importantly deployment) of new features ignoring the fact that said new features are breaking more current code than they are fixing or enhancing. At some point any development house worth its salt is going to have to re-evaluate and dedicate themselves to stabilizing their current build before rolling out new code. This does not mean new features cannot be developed. It means they cannot be DEPLOYED. There is a difference. Microsoft has an OS monopoly yet Vista was still pushed back how many years? And this is a company notorious for a "fix it later" attitude? You're right. Scientists haven't stopped researching due to failure to find a cure for cancer. However, few if any medical research firms would submit a cure for anything to the public as a finished product, receive later reports that said cure was destroying bone cells in customers, and then push on to cure something else with another product while their customers were dying from their poorly tested vaccine. And when they try, their products get pulled off the market and they pay millions if not billions in damages. Cigarettes, Phen Phen; you can't just ship the product and ignore the results. The generalizations and exaggerations in your argument do not help its validity one bit. I've been reading these forums for months and have yet to see an instance of the type you say you're sick of where someone is demanding that "every single bug" be fixed before proceeding with new development. People are, in no uncertain terms, asking for stability in the most core aspects of the game's functionality. It is not unreasonable to ask that the features LL hangs the program's hat on work without crashing and costing people time and money. What is unreasonable is the "grin and bear it" philosophy that people seem to be so eager to apply here but would not display themselves in any RL situation. Or is it okay with you for your car company to concentrate on rolling out their new integrated cellphone technology while their customers are still being injured by their collapsing suspension systems?
|
Johanna Hyacinth
Disgruntled Linux user
Join date: 6 Dec 2006
Posts: 47
|
05-29-2007 16:15
From: Kascha Matova Although I respect your viewpoint, I am afraid I'll have to beg to differ on virtually every point you've made here... And you're certainly welcome to. From: someone What you do not take into account is the fact that most companies make correct use of the development cycle and take a significant amount of time in testing and debugging at the beta level before release. I have no statistics to either confirm or refute what "most" companies do. I know the company I work for has had to put out numerous patch releases of software after it was officially released, to fix bugs (some quite severe) not caught in beta - and that's for software several orders of magnitude less complex than Second Life. And I certainly remember all the Windows XP and Server 2003 patches I've had to roll out to our network on a frequent basis. From: someone I've been reading these forums for months and have yet to see an instance of the type you say you're sick of where someone is demanding that "every single bug" be fixed before proceeding with new development. Please note that I said the blog, not the forums: "Please, DEAR GOD PLEASE! fix the existing problems first before compounding more bugs onto SL!" (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/29/windlight-first-look-viewer-released/#comment-307169). "How about you forget just having 70% (less than 3/4) of your programmers on SL Bug fixes and throw them all on duty." (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/24/the-plan-for-voice/#comment-29963  "What we want is a stable, bug free SL, then when you’ve achieved that you can start giving us cool new features." (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/24/second-life-sculpted-prim-contest-show-us-your-sculpties/#comment-298646) "Fix bugs before buggering up the client with new flashy hoo-ha noone *needs*" (http://blog.secondlife.com/2007/05/21/windlight-atmospheric-rendering-comes-to-second-life/#comment-293154) That's just from the posts which haven't scrolled off the front page of the Second Life blog. From: someone What is unreasonable is the "grin and bear it" philosophy that people seem to be so eager to apply here but would not display themselves in any RL situation. Or is it okay with you for your car company to concentrate on rolling out their new integrated cellphone technology while their customers are still being injured by their collapsing suspension systems? Google for "If cars were like computers". The "grin and bear it" approach is not endemic to Second Life residents, and exists in RL too. Honestly, I don't understand the point of your response. I never argued that Linden Lab should not strive for stability. Nor do I recall arguing that stability and new features are mutually exclusive; indeed, that was precisely what I was arguing AGAINST.
|
Kascha Matova
Bus Bench Supermodel
Join date: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 342
|
05-29-2007 17:06
From: Johanna Hyacinth And you're certainly welcome to. I have no statistics to either confirm or refute what "most" companies do. I know the company I work for has had to put out numerous patch releases of software after it was officially released, to fix bugs (some quite severe) not caught in beta - and that's for software several orders of magnitude less complex than Second Life. And I certainly remember all the Windows XP and Server 2003 patches I've had to roll out to our network on a frequent basis. Of course that makes sense. However, faced with defects that render the majority of your core functionality useless would your company consider a change of focus, or would it soldier on with more huge code alterations? There are bugs and then there are BUGS. In my first rollout of NT 4 Server and Workstation over 100+ machines we discovered that the wrong revision of Cyrix 686 chips was listed on the HCL, causing instant BSDs unless both internal and external caching was disabled from boot. It doesn't matter what new features you wanted to put in. That gets fixed first. None of those examples illustrate the "0% failure rate or die" viewpoint you refer to. They all seem to be saying that they want their core functionality fixed so they can operate successfully as is before jumping onto the next feature bandwagon. You and I both know what "bug free" really equates to for the average computer user. It means more gain with less pain, not a flawless technological masterpiece. From: Johanna Hyacinth Google for "If cars were like computers". The "grin and bear it" approach is not endemic to Second Life residents, and exists in RL too. Yes I know; this was very funny. If taken seriously however, we have only to Google the story of the 1961-1963 Corvair to realize what would really happen if cars were like computers. There are only two differences. First, when core automotive functionality fails on the same level of magnitude as a hard computer crash, people get killed. Two is that the automotive industry has a recall system that addresses core failures of their product. Recall work is of course free of charge, because nobody should really be expected to keep paying for a product that fails to deliver core functionality consistently and with epic scale. From: Johanna Hyacinth Honestly, I don't understand the point of your response. I never argued that Linden Lab should not strive for stability. Nor do I recall arguing that stability and new features are mutually exclusive; indeed, that was precisely what I was arguing AGAINST. I agree you did not. However when you say that you are tired of people complaining about LL putting new features ahead of stability what is the difference? You are still implying that people should overlook their problems with running SL as well as loss of their original creations and monetary investments because new stuff is being dropped in. Stability and new features by definition are not mutually exclusive - we agree here too. But they can be. If every new feature breaks the app back to some previous release's level someone should make that call if they need to. I think that's all people are saying. The call is not being made.
|
Johanna Hyacinth
Disgruntled Linux user
Join date: 6 Dec 2006
Posts: 47
|
06-01-2007 04:18
From: Kascha Matova Of course that makes sense. However, faced with defects that render the majority of your core functionality useless would your company consider a change of focus, or would it soldier on with more huge code alterations? Come one now... "the majority of your core functionality useless"? Are you REALLY saying that applies here? When you log into Second Life, you can't move at all, you can't chat with anyone, you can't build a single thing, you can't buy and sell anything at all...? Yes, there are bugs. I'm not saying there aren't. I'm not saying they shouldn't be fixed. From: someone None of those examples illustrate the "0% failure rate or die" viewpoint you refer to. They all seem to be saying that they want their core functionality fixed so they can operate successfully as is before jumping onto the next feature bandwagon. Perhaps you're reading them differently than I am, then. When you see, in EVERY BLOG POST announcing a new feature, at least one person complaining that new features are being introduced before the bugs are fixed - not "core functionality" bugs - what does that say to you? From: someone Yes I know; this was very funny. If taken seriously however, we have only to Google the story of the 1961-1963 Corvair to realize what would really happen if cars were like computers. Yet your statement was that tolerance for bugs was not seen "in any RL situation". Unless you're saying that the only thing computers are used for is Second Life, then clearly it demonstrates that, no, that kind of tolerance IS seen in RL situations as well. From: someone I agree you did not. However when you say that you are tired of people complaining about LL putting new features ahead of stability what is the difference? If 70% of LL's programmers were on new features, rather than on bug fixes, that might be a valid complaint. From: someone You are still implying that people should overlook their problems with running SL as well as loss of their original creations and monetary investments because new stuff is being dropped in. No. I'm not. I'm saying I'm sick of the false dichotomy between bug fixes and new features. It is NOT an either-or choice.
|
Kascha Matova
Bus Bench Supermodel
Join date: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 342
|
06-01-2007 11:31
From: Johanna Hyacinth Come one now... "the majority of your core functionality useless"? Are you REALLY saying that applies here? When you log into Second Life, you can't move at all, you can't chat with anyone, you can't build a single thing, you can't buy and sell anything at all...? Yes that does apply here actually. Johanna I don't really believe there is an 'always' in anything, especially in this. But there are failures with each and every one of those functions often enough and disabling enough to warrant frustration and a call for change. This is a social game where people converse in large groups and spend a lot of time exploring. There don't need to be that many instances of slowdowns and crashes while at public gatherings or while moving about to warrant concern. In a game that touts building and creation, a bug that loses inventory or makes transfers iffy through x number of mandatory updates is debilitating failure in core functionality. You're an admin. How many times does DCOM have to lose or corrupt .dll registration information on your servers before you start wanting Microsoft to make correcting it a priority? Does it have to happen every single time you boot? Does every single .dll call have to fail before you will feel the company programmers are justified in complaining? From: Johanna Hyacinth Perhaps you're reading them differently than I am, then. When you see, in EVERY BLOG POST announcing a new feature, at least one person complaining that new features are being introduced before the bugs are fixed - not "core functionality" bugs - what does that say to you? Johanna you're expecting specifics from people here and if they don't provide them you're filling in the blanks. Then you're complaining because you don't like what's written. Sure there are people who complain about non-essential functionality. But I seriously doubt you really need people to say that they're crashing to the desktop frequently on login before you can surmise that that is one of their issues. And while we're on the subject, is there any reason you would have expected people to stop complaining about these issues when the issues persist? I guarantee you nobody complains about fixing inventory losses when they are no longer losing inventory. From: Johanna Hyacinth Yet your statement was that tolerance for bugs was not seen "in any RL situation". Unless you're saying that the only thing computers are used for is Second Life, then clearly it demonstrates that, no, that kind of tolerance IS seen in RL situations as well. I think that Chevy would take a dim view of the tolerance of the NHTSB in my example that you are referring to. Their car was pulled completely off the market and they were sued for millions and sanctioned. As I mentioned earlier though I don't believe in 'any' or 'all', so I wouldn't take my use of the word 'any' here literally. There are of course always exceptions. I've made them myself with horribly performing products. I did however, reserve the right to be unhappy about it and to express that unhappiness as often as I chose in the absence of relief. From: Johanna Hyacinth No. I'm not. I'm saying I'm sick of the false dichotomy between bug fixes and new features. It is NOT an either-or choice. No I have agreed; it's not. But honestly, what do you expect sweetie? People are always going to pay more attention to what affects them personally. And if they've not used or don't plan to use any of those new features their capacity to tolerate the continued existence of their own difficulties in the face of those features is going to degrade until for them, it is an XOR.
|
Johanna Hyacinth
Disgruntled Linux user
Join date: 6 Dec 2006
Posts: 47
|
06-01-2007 14:59
From: Kascha Matova Yes that does apply here actually. I guess we simply have different definitions of "useless", then. Because for what it's worth, I haven't had a single item go permanently missing from inventory, nor lost a single transaction, in the nearly eight months I've been in Second Life. I can build, I can texture, I can script, I can buy, I can sell, I can chat - all core functionality - with little to no trouble except under extremely heavy concurrency (in which case I simply wait until a more propitious time). From my experience, then, I must dispute your assertion that the "majority of core functionality is useless". Perfect? Certainly not! But neither is it "useless". From: someone You're an admin. How many times does DCOM have to lose or corrupt .dll registration information on your servers before you start wanting Microsoft to make correcting it a priority? With 70% of Linden Labs' programmers working on bug fixes, how can anyone reasonably assert that it is NOT a priority for them? From: someone And while we're on the subject, is there any reason you would have expected people to stop complaining about these issues when the issues persist? Are you actually reading what I write? I have no issue with people who complain about specific problems. My issue is with people who ask Linden Lab to stop development on new features because the existing codebase has bugs. Let me reiterate that, because no matter how many times I've said that, you seem not to have understood it: MY ISSUE IS WITH PEOPLE WHO ASK LINDEN LAB TO *STOP DEVELOPMENT ON NEW FEATURES* BECAUSE THE EXISTING CODEBASE HAS BUGS. From: someone As I mentioned earlier though I don't believe in 'any' or 'all', so I wouldn't take my use of the word 'any' here literally. Ah. I apologize for assuming I could take your words at face value. But if you can sidestep my responses by saying you didn't mean it literally, then we don't really have a basis for rational discussion. Enjoy Second Life, then, and I hope you'll eventually find it less "useless", whatever that term means to you.
|
Kascha Matova
Bus Bench Supermodel
Join date: 30 Mar 2007
Posts: 342
|
06-01-2007 16:09
From: Johanna Hyacinth I guess we simply have different definitions of "useless", then. Because for what it's worth, I haven't had a single item go permanently missing from inventory, nor lost a single transaction, in the nearly eight months I've been in Second Life. I can build, I can texture, I can script, I can buy, I can sell, I can chat - all core functionality - with little to no trouble except under extremely heavy concurrency (in which case I simply wait until a more propitious time). From my experience, then, I must dispute your assertion that the "majority of core functionality is useless". Perfect? Certainly not! But neither is it "useless". So am I to assume then that your personal experience trumps everyone else's? And please - don't put words in my mouth. I use SL every day and no matter how badly you need these to be "my assertions", it doesn't make it so. We were discussing the complaints of others and the use of the word "useless" describes the feelings a lot of them have about the core functionality. I have commented here from their standpoint assuming their viewpoint. If you want to have a discussion about what I think of the service personally, then say so. From: Johanna Hyacinth With 70% of Linden Labs' programmers working on bug fixes, how can anyone reasonably assert that it is NOT a priority for them? Because the same bugs persist apparently. Like I said. People don't tend to complain about bugs that get fixed, after they been fixed. When people hear more about shiny new features in blogs than they do about resolved problems, well... There is a thread somewhere around here that outlines how that 70% determine who works on what bug. You might want to check that out before postulating that 70% means what you think it means. From: Johanna Hyacinth Are you actually reading what I write? I have no issue with people who complain about specific problems. My issue is with people who ask Linden Lab to stop development on new features because the existing codebase has bugs.
Let me reiterate that, because no matter how many times I've said that, you seem not to have understood it: MY ISSUE IS WITH PEOPLE WHO ASK LINDEN LAB TO *STOP DEVELOPMENT ON NEW FEATURES* BECAUSE THE EXISTING CODEBASE HAS BUGS. I will remember to make any complaints I have in the future, since I have only posted one in the past, as specific as possible. P.S. The person who told you all caps = more effective was probably just fooling around. Guess he should have been more literal huh? Because... From: Johanna Hyacinth Ah. I apologize for assuming I could take your words at face value. But if you can sidestep my responses by saying you didn't mean it literally, then we don't really have a basis for rational discussion.
Enjoy Second Life, then, and I hope you'll eventually find it less "useless", whatever that term means to you. You know what Johanna, I apologize. I thought this discussion was friendly and open. But since that's where you want to take this, let me conclude by assuring you, in no uncertain terms, that nothing you have asked me or stated to me has come close to making me feel I need to do any sidestepping. I don't do that when presented with facts. Why would I do it when the rocks you're throwing are made of little more than semantic "ahas"? If you want to use the fact that people, including me, do not word things specifically enough for you as an opportunity to conclude that we're annoying or not capable of rational conversation, then fine. Invalidate my whole viewpoint. I could care less. But at the same time, can the aloof superiority bit, because I've heard it before countless times and it gets weaker every single time. And for the record, I do enjoy Second Life. I have since I joined, and I will in the future. I have not complained about lost functionality save once. When I have been on the way to equating LL competence with my problem of the day, I remember again what a monumental undertaking this is, and that's usually the end of it. My only comment about functionality was to "ask" if anyone else was experiencing slow clothing changes after the last update. Is that specific enough for you Jo? K thanks...
|