DanGandhi Goff
Registered User
Join date: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 6
|
03-23-2006 08:57
I got on SL because they have a linux client (alpha or no). And seeing as it's main drawback is User Interface interoperability, and that this is alpha and that they have a stated intent of GPLing the whole mass. It seems that Open Sourcing the UI API would allow the development of SL helper tools, and an entirely new, probably modular multi window interface for the linux UI, which would:
1) enable us to fix our own most compelling problems,
2) leave the game core in LLs hands
3) allow for (optional, binary linked) UI chanegs, mostly needed by Linux SL users.
4) if te OS UI is good enough LL could roll it back into their main source tree.
is that feasible, or not even remotely in the game plan?
-dan
|
Vinci Calamari
Free Software Promoter
Join date: 27 Feb 2006
Posts: 192
|
03-23-2006 09:54
From: DanGandhi Goff is that feasible, or not even remotely in the game plan?
Dan, thats really THE question. LL has stated that they want to go open source, but right now there is not even much transparency. We are getting told if a version is out and if it does not get out. But we don't get told what they are doing. they should blog about the development and the open source process at least.
|
Zi Ree
Mrrrew!
Join date: 25 Feb 2006
Posts: 723
|
03-23-2006 09:54
We have been discussing this amongst the Linux users for quite some time now. Still, there's no sign of LL to go Open Source anytime soon. We will keep on discussing of course  See here: /263/7b/94948/1.html
_____________________
Zi! (SuSE Linux 10.2, Kernel 2.6.13-15, AMD64 3200+, 2GB RAM, NVidia GeForce 7800GS 512MB (AGP), KDE 3.5.5, Second Life 1.13.1 (6) alpha soon beta thingie) Blog: http://ziree.wordpress.com/ - QAvimator: http://qavimator.orgSecond Life Linux Users Group IRC Channel: irc.freenode.org #secondlifelug
|
DanGandhi Goff
Registered User
Join date: 18 Mar 2006
Posts: 6
|
I'm making a more limited suggestion.
03-24-2006 09:10
While I would like SL to go GPL or at least OS with a minimally restrictive license, I am not really advocating that at this point. Largely as an observation that LLs process is not transparent I am suggesting a minimal phasing of a "small" portion of the SL client be made available as a published API, or at least some significant documentation and a public " please feel free to build tools based around the API for the User Interface, and here is where to look on the client side to link your app"
I understand that LL has a complex system and that opening their client at this stage may compromise that stability of the server side. Based on some of the debug options ( turn UI off Debug UI) and the basic fact that it simply makes sense on a project this size the UI must have some sort of formal interface. I am advocating/suggesting/requesting that LL seriously consider helping/permitting the linux user community to build external/addition UI apps around SL, either as seprate executable with a socket type interface or as object files that we can link to a UI free object binary that LL provides for this purpouse. I prefer the non-compilation opition, but as we know this is all up to LL at this point.
-dan
|
Naedo Goff
Registered User
Join date: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 10
|
03-24-2006 23:32
LL have stated that they intend to open source the whole system, client and server. It's not going to happen any time soon though, and that's a good thing, IMO. It (LL and the code) really needs to be well prepared for a move like that. Remember that SL was built in order to get a company running and profitable. That means built fast. It doesn't mean secure, tidy, ready to expose to the world code.
|