Can't Be Done

This, if it's true, makes me shudder. Considering that we can create lists of individuals that can access or not a restricted parcel, essentially adding them to a parcel related group that affects how they can use the land, it seems impossible that extending that feature to the land options is impossible.

But then I can't believe that I can't believe it's not butter isn't butter.

Second Life - We Centralize Everything Except Code Development!

Khamon, take a minute to look at a few of the other can't do proposals, at least it might cheer you up a little.

one example:

Prop: 396 - Stop ignorant, ill informed people from making stupid and misleading proposals


That strikes me as pretty funny.

Based on the Linden Comments given, I took it to mean they "can't do" it the way described, but are looking at other options:



And if they create a landlord/tenant type tool, that would be really great in my eyes!

Khamon, whilst I agree that it does seem strange that this has been labelled as 'can't be done' I suspect that the reason maybe because to do it would require a re-write of quite a substantial part of the system because of the way I suspect it's currently written. Development has been fast and again I suspect that in many areas control flows etc. are hard coded in a way which makes them pretty inflexible, possibly because of the way the system has evolved, possibly due to the way it has been written.

Again, I suspect that at some point some quite major re-writes of pivotal parts of the system are going to be needed in order for additional funtionality to be added, to bring the core up to an acceptable level of flexibility to be extendable going forward. It seems that the UI is the first pivotal part that's being attempted (and we know from that Lindens have said on this that at present it is basically hard-coded and inflexible - even adding new options to screens would appear to be a pain from what's been said), along with the physics (although that's all so much vapour-ware still, and may again be taking a long time, because of the way SL is pieced together currently - more opinion there I'd like to add).

Of course, I could be wrong, but when a seemingly (on the face of it) entirely possible feature (which is basically just an extension of parcel 'ownership') is labelled as 'can't be done' there must be a fairly serious reason for this, and ineherent inflexibility could well be that reason potentially

What's the difference? Instead of flagging them with 1 bit meaning "banned", we flag people with a second bit meaning "permissive". Not a change in architecture, just 1 extra bit of data per person listed.

Don't feel so bad, Kharmon, I think that more a general policy statement than a reply to the particular proposal. Other things which fit into this category are:

1. working video that doen't hang or crash most clients
   
2. havoc 2
   
3. contruct a rational permissions structure
   
4. make the existing permission system semantics "stick"
   
5. control the internal economy
   
6. prevent agents from plunging below into vHades
   
7. prevent agents from entering non-spaces
   
8. phantom the roof of Waterhead telehub
   
9. document anything
   
10. commit to anything
    
11. respond to support inquiries
    
12. look at bug reports
    
13. follow their own stated policies
    
14. repair asset DB errors without destroying entire inventories
    
15. manage to reach their goals on log-a-thon stress tests
    
16. adhere to their rules of promotional video competitions
    
17. have any semblance of professional development practices
    
18. etc.
    

The voting system seems to have been constructed as a sop to make people believe that they had a voice, not unlike the US Federal elections over the last 50+ years.

okay, seriously ... aren't you getting just a *wee* too trivial here?

I apologize for implying that this made me feel bad. I didn't vote for this and would, frankly, rather see the effort put into much long time needed revisions to the group code. The reason it caught my attention is because, as Hiro posted, unless they're using dBase III+, this seriously can't be impossible to do.

If I seem sad, it's because we now know that the correct interpretation of "can't be done" is "no developer has volunteered to do it and no manager considers it important enough to make it a priorty." That's not saddening though. It's appalling, and amusing, but not saddening. For that matter, what's appalling is not that they operate (using the term loosely) this way. It's that, for two years, they've steadily taken input from us under the illusion that they function in teams with a coordinator and toward the common goal of improving the SL experience for users. Finding out that the place is a free for all sandbox just blows my mind. Still, it's more amusing than anything.

If you want sad and abused for wasting so much time trying to work with them, talk to Jarod.

Perhaps, but calling out "can't phantom the roof of the Waterhead telehub" amplifies my point a bit.

When the new Welcome Area was constucted, it was pointed out that the gorgeous roofs were a major impediment to some of the most heavily travelled telehubs especially since it was newbie landing area and the last thing someone trying to adapt to the game for the first time needed was to be boxed in. The WA roofs were phantomed within days - I suspect by the third-party builder who created them.

The Waterhead "head bang" has been a known problem since it's construction, then became the entry point while the Ahern WA was being reconstructed, is the telehub that is used to access the Linden Lab recruiting center (and many other destinations in that zone). I would take approximately 72 seconds for the problem to be fixed, but it hasn't been.

Sure, recasting the permissions system to something more comprehensible is likely very difficult, but phantoming the roofs isn't. But both of these improvements get equal attention, which is to say, none.

You know though, if it's not butter then what is it?

Takes notes.... "can't be done" in a world that is advertized as "no limitations except the imagination" perhaps its time for LL to hire a few more staff members who can accomplish which the existing team fails to deliver.

Cat

Margarine.

Its not nice to fool Mother Nature.

*flashes of lightening* *sounds of thunder*

They're not saying it *can't* be done, but that they want to go a different direction with it (read the comments)...

They also did a 'can't do' on prop 550 - One (1) Porny.. which although technically CAN be done (See One (1) PONY) - they just decided not to

Siggy.

Siggy, those comments have changed since this thread was started. In fact, I guess they've changed in the last couple of hours, because that certainly wasn't the comment earlier. It was basically just 'can't be done' earlier.

Interesting.

Moopf. That comment was there before you posted the first time in this thread. I know it was because I posted just before you and refered to that comment. That is why I was a little confused no one else was seeing what I was??

Pendari, I certainly didn't see that comment when I looked, before I posted originally. Absolutely 100% sure of that. Mind you, nothing suprises me here.

PS. Looking at the time differnce between our posts (3 minutes) I was writing my reply before I'd seen yours as well - in fact I've only just read yours now. Definitely strange.

This is just a mistake of using "can't" instead of "won't".