client source opened - sky falling?

But the kind of people who run internet servers are the kind of people who are good at making systems secure. Just because Unix/Linux is secure when installed with lots of security utilities, even if they're free ones, does not make the OS intrinsically secure. Linux distributions often include security software, but that's not really the same - if several big third-party distributors bundled ZoneAlarm or something similar with Windows, would that make Windows more secure?

Yes. So can you still say with straight face something that revolutionizes the industry (of copying someone else's work) has at the same time "no impact whatsoever" and is a "non-event"? Seriously...


Ahh certainly i'll agree the potential for higher security is there. I think we'll just differ in expectation of that 'critical mass' and (maybe especially) the Lindens "doing their part" to keep things secure even in the face of known security holes.

That example of wiki thing wasn't to point out that open source software is "bad" or "unsafe" per se and in itself... it was just to show that the life already verified the open source isn't some silver bullet that's guaranted to prevent any and all serious security breach, given enough neglect of responsible party involved. So given this track record am rather dubious about the client code release... because while yes, it gives both 'bad guys' and 'good guys' the same material to work with, if the 'good guys' don't shape up and instead just keep the carefree attitude about their responsibility... we're quite likely to wind up worse off, than better :|

Certainly I expect the typical SL user to go on using SL as they have in the past, only downloading a new SL client when a new version of the SL server requires it. They will download the new official LL client, in response to a dialogue window telling them they must, by clicking on a button.

I may have to do the same, if LL doesn't give open-source client coders advance notification of any changes that are required. (It's annoying when your client is always "breaking" whenever the server software is updated.) But I intend to be one of those using a 3rd party client. This is because I expect there will be at least one trustworthy source of 3rd party clients that will consistently put out a superior client that works better, has better features, and is more secure than anything LL will put out.

My point is that it will not take long for competing clients to establish the trust that is needed for widespread acceptance. Sure, malicious programmers can come up with whatever they want, but it's "hard" for them to gain that kind of trust; all that has to happen is for one programmer somewhere in the world to point out the malicious nature of their work, and they'll have a hard time ever getting anyone to download their files without resorting to deception--and few people download files from unproved sources. However, if someone comes out with an alternate client next month with any kind of enhancements over the official client, it won't take a month to gain the trust (and cooperation?) of other coders, and in a few weeks many non-coding geeks will be using it as well. By this time three months from now I predict there will be a well-known site for downloading a well-known 3rd-party client.

I can easily imagine a year from many of the very prim and texture designers who are now worried about security using a 3rd-party client that greatly improves the design and management of prims and textures over what is available from LL--at least for while they're designing or uploading. This is because LL must be more cautious about changes to the official client, and LL's client must be a general client for all users. This also assumes--and I do assume it--that going open-source does not destroy the lucrative market for creativity.

BTW, I believe people will always be able to make good money selling prims, textures, and scripts for the same reasons the exact same item in RL can cost more in one place (e.g. Albertsons) than in another (e.g. a swap meet). (1) If I'm looking for a quality AV, I'm going to assume (rightly or wrongly) it's likely to cost me money, rather than being available at Freebie Warehouse; (2) The people who charge for their merchandise have more motive to market it than those who don't; so when I go into a mall looking for shoes, chances are I'm going in to a mall where I'll pay some money to get my shoes; I'll be unlikely to happen to know a guy who distributes copies of shoes for cheap; (3) Any infringer who gets a high-enough profile for me to hear about him and go check out his wares probably also has a high-enough profile to get the attention of those defending their intellectual property; and (4) I not only want to save money, I want to save time, and people that make it convenient for me to know about their product (advertising) and find their product (placement) increase their chances of selling me their product.

I live in a country where intellectual property is not respected (although it remains against the rules). Pirated movies and music CD's cost less than US$2. Pirated polo shirts cost $5. Pirated bluejeans cost $10. Pirated software costs $1.50/CD. All of these things are openly displayed for sale in malls. Intellectual property holders nevertheless find ways to alleviate the situation. Things that don't make financial sense for most of them individually work when they all share the costs; there is a group here supported by the likes of Sony, Microsoft, etc. that tracks down and prosecutes the biggest infringers. Advertising makes sure people feel embarassed--at least in certain occasions--to be known to use pirated wares. In their struggle to make it as bottom-feeders, margins are slim and quality slips; this is recognized. People here can quickly spot a counterfeit, because there are so many, and the real thing carries status. One result is that business is unlikely to infringe, because they have more to lose. The amazing thing is not that people still infringe--the amazing thing is how many don't.

I expect creative people to grit their teeth over the infringement to come in SL, just as Microsoft and Sony and Pierre Cardin and Givenchy grit their teeth over the lost revenues here. But I also SL designers to continue to thrive, and all the more as SL grows, just as RL companies do here.

I stop following any discussion when the length of any given post exceeds one full screen, let alone the five that seems standard now in this thread. Shame really, becvause this was an interesting one.

Here, have some Ritalin, it might help your attention deficit.

Also, you're exaggerating, the posts are barely one screen's height on my display. And I, for one, like posts with content.

Keep the discussion rolling, folks - you're doing very well. It is a complex issue, and I think both sides have valid points (I'm personally siding with the pro-Open-Source crowd, though, being a software developer and a netizen who values trust in software). Philosophical and ethical discussions do tend to become complex and convoluted, but that's the best thing about them, IMHO.


cHex Losangeles, your post was well worth reading. The real world example adds a lot of weight to it. It has broadened my horizon in that area, it's one of those "wow, I never saw it that way" things I'll gladly use as a handy argument in future discussions of this kind.




You've gotten it wrong, Windows needs add-on security software, os'es such as Linux and especially OpenBSD actually are intrinsically more secure. There's a remarkably low amount of security tools installed in a default distro (I can't really think of any that are actively running in any plain install of Debian, Ubuntu or SuSE Linux). As all software is flawed, it's good to have these powerful tools available, but really, what are they? Just tools that let you look under the hood of an open system, instead of having to trust closed source software to fix whatever problems might arise without introducing new ones that the manufacturers decide to eliminate whenever they see fit, not whenever a user needs them to.

#197 is a massive 12 and a bit screens high for me

There is a definite trend in the SL community towards painting walls. of. text.

As for the issue at hand, the relevance of another Windows/Linux security debate seems futile given that most concerns are related to interception of content in a networked 3D modelling application. Well yeah, now the client source is freely available, few software developers (given a few hours) would have difficultly intercepting a range of content diverse enough to put the fear of Phil up the entire userbase. But software developers make up a tiny proportion of the userbase and history seems to show that exploits are utilized by an even smaller minority than that. Perhaps the ethical and philosophical debates should focus more on this, and those wanting to endlessly run around in circles can put keywords 'windows vs. linux' into Google.

My favorite gaming community until I upgraded to XP was the sims.
Of a course the standard for fan based content was it wasn't endorsed.
If you do search there thousands upon thousands of every single type of content imagine for free and some that charge.
There is literally no limits in creativity these people came up with but sadly one issues was fan based content with that format caused problems, it caused the game sometimes to think you had numerous same objects.
Personally if I could code I create offline version of Second Life, find a way to really mean your imagionation, your world.
One great things I liked about the orginal sims wasn't about the stupid interactions designed in the game it was about being able to create, design, imagine a world I wanted to be in and searching for really wonderful talented content artist and seeing their work.
In format that exist now in Second Life its very limited and It seems sometimes like there a lot of copying not a lot of unique, creative things and truthfully finding and understanding content that is created seems limited to non-existant.
What I liked about the sims was people did it because they loved what they were doing it wasn't about getting paid. It was about sharing your creativity, coming up with something uniquely different and clever. Of course nothing there nothing wrong with getting paid and having money but at what cost? I have nothing but if I created something geninuely beautifull, clever and unique I would be happy just for others to recognize my efforts personally. Yes be bummed if someone took it said it was theres. But if someone could borrow ideal and improve there skills, live, or even better ideal in long run I would happy with that.
How I learn to paint and draw was studying the old masters, lot of artist learn that way.
I figure open source is just way of improving and sharing knowledge though its bit strange in our very money focus society that it exist too sometimes.
Hopefully maybe there will be new things to do and play in Second Life or even on our own desktops but truthfully I don't see how people are going to get there.

Oops, I guess >I< need to be taking Ritalin here. Or my browser didn't show that GARGANTUAN (yet still good!) post the first time I viewed this section of the thread. Sorry!

I'm not a technical person so I don't understand half the points discussed here. I just trust LL given their own wealth very much depends on keeping their product safe and sound.

As soon as I read about open-source viewers I started to think about possible commercial applications. One of these would be to allow people in RL to 'glimps' into SL through lightweight viewers that could be embedded, for example, on a web page.

Imagine going to a website and seeing a banner and clicking on it to find yourself in SL and able to interact with the commercial. I don't think you can get more immersed in an ad than that!

I don't know whether this example is actually possible (and there would be the issue of login to figure out) but I'm sure this development opens up more opportunities for RL businesses, for the benefit of all.

Open source.... did no one see this coming?
It's a 'natural' evolutionary step in the growth path of a lot of successful Internet programmes/games. Anyone thinking this was going to remain a 'closed shop' needs to get their head out of the sands.
I personally see this as a positive step, allowing many talented (and not so talented) people develop elements of SL beyond the current 'limitations'. Like all success's, come the 'darkside' of course their will be exploiters, we may use a Virtual Relaity programme, but its run by real life people, good and bad. The advantages out weight the disadvantages. Leave LL to focus on getting the server farm and the software for the servers better, while others focus on gaining the most for the users at the other end.

I have suggested the 'Validation Certificate' method of controlling potential exploitors, whereby anyone wanting to submit their client creation to become 'for general use' to LL and obtain a seal approval for a cost, same as Windows drivers. If you choose to install a client without its 'seal', so be it.

Why is this thread still open?