Blue Mars Progress

Not really...........look at SL. Continual beta testing. Then the enforced viewer updates as release candidates.

On the serious side. Even Microsoft follows the 'alpha, beta, RC' trail. Windows Vista (Longhorn?) in it's beta stage was nowhere near it's RC. Same with Windows 7.....how many RC's where put out before the planned "official" package (which, even at this advanced stage is subject to change)?

That is true. The developer can choose to inhibit almost any functionality the platform supports. Of course, if developers make their cities unattractive to residents and visitors, they will fall by the wayside.



Well, having been a resident of Virtual Worlds for some years now, I hope I take the view of the resident as paramount. I have posted many mantis reports about things such as avatar movement, camera control, and other stuff I think would make the resident experience more enjoyable, and I keep urging others to do the same.



Well no, didn't quite say that. Items in inventory can be rezzed, providing the City Owner allows it. However, my first comment above equally applies to the rezzing of objects. SL region owners can also prohibit the rezzing of objects, but I don't think the owners in Blue Mars will be any more open/restrictive than the owners in SL.



Well that is true!! Just takes Windows XP, was that ever out of beta? How many patches? I think everyone lost count, it seemed it was continuously in development.

As far as beta testing is concerned, Blue Mars appear to me to be following the definition as given in the Software Release Life Cycle wiki:



I would definitely not call it pre-alpha, as the features are essentially complete (rather than being developed as they go along), they just release it piecemeal to aid bug-testing/bug squashing by getting their devs focussed on a particular feature set, which I think is a smart strategy.

Rock

By the definition on that page Blue Mars isn't even up to the stage of system testing. It's pre-alpha.

And I'm getting my information from 30 years of software development in an industry where bugs can kill people.

Beta-testing of new releases doesn't mean previous releases are not RTM (release to market, the stage after RC).

You're confusing quality with functional completeness. No beta release of Vista was missing major functionality.

Cherry picking definitions is effective in defining a specific point of view. I said it's a long and boring read..........with a lot of following links to get the total definition of the whole software testing cycle. Taking one thing on a single page (first page I would image ) is not getting the total definition. You cannot argue a case like that........because it's not true.

And, since you are so confident that all the beta releases for Vista were full featured, I'd love some documentation on that. Even if it means some more long and boring reading.

BTW, back when Vista was codenamed Longhorn I read a lot about it.......the final release was not anything like what I read before it was released. Longhorn was it's beta release, if memory serves me correct.

I'm intimately familiar with the software testing cycle. I've been intimately familiar with it since before ANY of the current desktop operating systems were a twinkle in anyone's eye.

Virtually all the new functionality in Vista that wasn't present in XP was not user-visible. The user visible changes in Vista are minor functionality like the Aero theme and re-organization of the user interface.

Longhorn was the wishlist. Like Cairo was the wishlist for what became Windows 2000. Virtually none of the functionality planned for either Cairo or Longhorn that didn't make it into the first beta was ever released.

Then I'm sure you are quite aware that beta releases are very flexible in how they are released. There is NO concrete set of rules that say how it is released nor what features, functions, or whatever are included in the release. And you also know that beta can (and does) ofen skirt that fine line between alpha and beta. You are taking a very narrow definition of a very broadly defined subject.

What has been released is not a beta of Blue Mars. It's a beta of the development platform and a rough cut at the environment, but that's not the same thing.

And...........? Blue Mars is what if it's not a platform?

Aye! Here's the crux of the matter. Not picking on you here, but you are a developer thinking about what you want to see in your city and what the end user experience will be like. These are important considerations as your construction proceeds.

You get your city up and running, and start receiving user messages telling you that they want such and such a feature. Do you give in and incorporate it? Or, do you say no because it will be a feature such that it adversely impacts the theme of your world, yet knowing you risk losing your customer base? Do you have criteria set about what you are willing to change? On the BM platform, the only one who needs to be pressured to make changes is the city developer.

This is a relevant question for SL users as well. We all have our wish list of what we would like, but how much influence does an SL end user have on LL? Does a minority have more influence just because they are vocal about a feature? Does LL have a criteria on which they base decisions to add, or delete, features based on user experience? [Other than they "make up stuff as they go along" belief.]

And, I'll be the anarchist here and say that the current designations, e.g., Greek letters, used to describe phases of software development are archaic and their usage should be overthrown. Down with alpha and beta! Burn the RC! Obliterate the RTM!!

Well, first, "a beta of the development platform" without the common user interface is like showing people the UNIX shell without a window system. Which I find just fine, as a developer, but you wouldn't describe it as a beta of Gnome or KDE. The platform includes more than the development tools and basic testbed.

On top of that, Rock would have us believe that it's a virtual world. When we suggest that it's a platform for developing 3d video games, he tells everyone to wait for the beta. People look at the beta, and see half a platform (the development side, not the user interface side), and no indication of what kind of game it is.

That will fix the whole argument.

On the other part of your post. I don't see much difference in the way Linden Lab handles what can be done or allowed for owners of Estates over what it appears the owners of the Blue Mars platform (VSE.......Virtual Space Entertainment?) allows. The residents who want features, permissions, etc have to go through the Estate owners to get anything included. The Estate owners make the decisions on what they want.......according to each owners' criteria or theme. The "little" man has very little input. Depending on what the City Dev wants to accomplish or develop the "players" in the City have a voice (or not). Not any different than SL on that part.

I guess I will have to wait til I get there to see for myself if what you say is true or not.

I'm guessing you've been there......though I can't remember you ever stating such.

Pretty close Argent.
BM is basically a development platform for games. BM is not the game itself, the game is what the estate owners place on it.
To put it more clear:
To start with, some game developer wishes to create a game.
Investors will want see proof, that some of the more radical ideas the developers may have, will be feasible.
Investors will also want some proof of the abilities of the developers.
Media will want some sneak peaks of what's in store.
Gamers will want previews, demos, etcetera of what they're getting.

Blue Mars is the quick platform to do these things. It's ideal for that.


Blue Mars is however not convenient for a creative community. The required skillset is simply too high for that, the model of the platform too inconvenient, the system requirements too high. It's just not "it", and it won't have "it" either. However, SL does fill that bill. Expecting Blue Mars to take over from SL is a very long shot. It's more realistic to expect the two to become interoperable at some point, either one plugging into the other for a nearly seamless transition. So one moment you're in SL talking with your buddies, the next moment you're in Blue Mars trying the demo of Hitman 28, still talking with your buddies who are still in SL. When you get tired of the game, you simply walk out and enter your favourite SL hangout again. A lot of work will need to be done on both sides before we ever get there, not the least within peoples' mindsets, but the two are simply too different to push eachother from the market, but could easily augment one another.

Here, it will be easier to understand if I graph this on the chalk board.

Hmmm . . . no chalk board, or chalk for that matter . . .

I guess it comes down to the reality that a BM city developer appears, at least at this time, to control every aspect of his/her build including some avatar controls and even what an avatar can use in inventory brought from another city.

Just say, and this would be a hoot if any one really wanted to be a ferret, you want to be a ferret and play golf. [Some ferrets, I hear, play tennis.] You can go to a golf sim in SL and play golf as a ferret. Yeah, some places are picky due to RP, etc., but on the whole SL is furry friendly, and you can at least wear your lucky golfing socks.

In a BM city, the developer may force you to look like Rodney Dangerfield because he likes the movie Caddyshack, will not allow you to use any inventory items other than what you purchase from him, and may not allow you to pan and zoom.

That golf course may be popular with Caddyshack fans, and no one else, but the developer is in total control and wants to keep that theme.

Is that much of a difference from SL? I think it is. LL has certain features hardwired into SL for the end user, e.g., camera controls and use of inventory items, that an estate owner can not take away.

No, sorry, I tried to get in and the application wouldn't download. I'm going by reports, and I've corrected my post to remove even the implication that I've been able to try it.

Is there a "Web Setup" downloading method and a distinct "direct download" setup method?

I think you have to get an invite to download the software. I'm on the list but I only put myself on that list about 2 weeks ago (maybe a week and a half.........I forgot exactly when). As I understand it it's a "first come, first served" thing..........so I'm not at the front of the line (maybe even at the tail end ). I do, however, have a dev friend who is there now trying to get me ahead using that "three friends invite thing" available to Devs. Looks like even that has a line of it's own . I'm patient though.....I'll get there sooner or later.

I hope!!!

So, that means (to me) that most, if not all, your input is speculation. Yeah, I understand it's "educated" speculation but speculation none the less.

I wasn't asking how to sign up, I was asking if there are two distinct methods of downloading, one a "Web_Setup" method, where you download a small file that you then run and it handles the rest of the download and installation, and another download method where you download a gigantic file right from the start, or perhaps a bunch of huge files.

This was in connection with Argent's trouble with downloading.

The web_setup installation process appears to have worked ok for me if I have my anti-malware software turned off.

The list of promised components that are not included, starting with the avatar editor, is not "speculation".

Okay...........guess I misread your post. Sorry.

I think there has been a list of promised components. However, since bonefide Developers are the only ones that those components apply to it's rather hard for Blue Mars to give those promises to individual end users.........that is for the devs (City owners) to promise.

I guess that's where I'm missing what you are repeatedly saying. It's pretty to me but evidently not for you.

Oh, and the "avatar editor" has been promised if my reading is correct.

And your main concern is that the City owners will deny access or restrict what you can or cannot do to a point that no one will be able to enjoy whatever it is the City owner is offering? That's pretty much the way it is in SL right now for Estate owners.........and user demand sort of dictates what the owners actually do with their sims/estates. I figure that will be the case in BM too. If not, then it might not keep me for long........but I don't see that happening. Competition of other City owners will prevent it.

Yes. THAT IS THE POINT. Virtually every feature that is of interest to end-users is "promised", but not included in this release, therefore this release does not provide any useful information to potential end-users.