Tag: Second Life

Naming and displaying

Posted on by Inara Pey

Hot on the heels of Philip Rosedale’s appearance at SLCC, Jack Linden brings us further news on the new Display Names option Philip mentioned.

On the whole, I find this a very good move; that people have been forced to select a predetermined last name for Second life – and have been unable to do anything about it (or indeed their first name, should they subsequently wish) – has been something of an annoyance. It also has to be said things like the lack of unicode capability with names, or the inability of partnered couples to share a common last name has caused endless grumbles. Similarly, and while I don’t engage in the same myself, I’m sure those that like to be Klingons, Romulans or orcs or elves  – or the whole rainbow of creatures / races / breeds that live within Second Life will welcome the ability to be more than just Joe Smith with a fancy helmet and a big sword / blaster gun / whatever.

Even so, despite the positives, it’s interesting LL have been careful to lay out the justification for the new (Viewer 2 based) feature alongside the announcement – almost as if they’re anticipating a backlash at the move and want to be able to point fingers back at the community as to why it has been done.

Good as it potentially is, it is not without concerns – many of which are raised in the comments that follow the announcement.

From a personal perspective, I’d question the “convenience” of some aspects of the new system, such as the find that Display Names will take precedence over “user names” (your current avatar name) in things like Friends /Contacts lists. Given that the user name is the constant that underpins an Avatar’s identity, I would have thought it more sensible not to change functionality so that Display Names are show in preference. Those who find a lot of their Friends and Contacts using this feature – even with changes limited to once a week – are going to find trawling through their lists to find if Joe Smith is now H’uspank’l chithulyTa, Sorovin Paladin, Howling Vishniac or Amy Anne Martha Fleetwood this week somewhat tiresome.

The idea that IMs will be logged under Display Names is similarly questionable. Business owners rely on IMs to trace conversations, record information and feedback about / from customers, etc. Right now all IM exchanges with a customer tend to end up in the same .TXT file – so over time it is easy to build up a history of correspondence with repeat customers, information that can be used in a variety of useful ways. With Display Names things could get very muddled. Given the transient nature of Display Names, some business owners potentially have a nice little task of ascertaining whom their most recent conversation was with (or who actually sent an IM that went to e-mail while they were offline), then having to prat around copying the info to the relevant IM log.

I’m not convinced by all of the “con” arguments put forward in the responses to the announcement; those familiar with Second Life and the antics a minority like to get up to will inevitably make sure that the option to display “user names” beneath Display Names is checked at all times. However, the potential for bilking the unwary does increase somewhat – though not enough to make this a no-go idea.

That said, I do find it objectionable that anyone can use my name as a display name. I’ve invested time and effort into my Second Life, and I regard “Inara Pey” very much as a part of my identity (to the point I now use the name outside of SL in the likes of Blue Mars and elsewhere); ergo, I’d be somewhat affronted at the thought of someone using it because they think it “cute” – leave alone creating any mischief while doing so.

Torley and others do their best to field questions raised in the commentary (although Amanda’s admonishment to Anne O’Toole on the subject of the use of all lower case in the “user name” is more than a little patronising), but it is interesting to note that there is a continued silence around the subject of scripted tools that log resident names.

These – such as security orbs – rely on a specific name being entered by an operator. It would appear that those maintaining such tools – say for access control to areas, etc., could find themselves constantly updating things or issuing “rules” users aren’t going to find popular.

It is going to be interesting to see how the “beta” period goes with the new feature – and how many will actually recognise / see it, given the size of the Viewer 2 user base compared with the 1.23.5 user base (where Display Names won’t be visible).  This in itself may cause problems where feedback is concerned, as issues such as those raised here may be simply discounted by LL purely because a “minority” seem to find them a problem.

Overall, Display Names add a flexibility to Second Life that has been missing for far too long; nevertheless it is not something that should be rolled out with a bang and accepted as “working”. LL have put a lot of emphasis on listening to feedback going forward; one hope that they’ve already started listening now and will work with us to make sure that Display Names is the cool feature they predict and we’ve wanted to see.

When words collide

Posted on by Inara Pey

I try not to engage or comment on disputes between people, but in this case I’ll make a small exception, as the faux pas is too good not to point out.

As I’ve mentioned, LordGregGreg departed Emerald over the weekend, and in doing so much of trust people have for the Viewer being kept “on-the-rails” followed him through the door.

His reasons for leaving were pretty clearly stated, and have been widely reported by supporters of Emerald and snipers alike.

Of course, there will always be two sides to every story – and then there is the truth, as the old cliche goes. But LordGregGreg – as many have stated – has never been anything other than straight and honest with people. As his blog shows, he’s been a consistent voice advocating people’s right to privacy and some security in what they are receiving through the Viewer or where the Viewer is redirecting them. He also has a deep technical understanding of the Viewer. For this reason, it is disappointing to see such a tawdry, accusative post appear on the Modular System’s blog regarding his departure.

It’s hard to see how raising legitimate concerns over the possible capture and/or transmission of private information that is not relevant to the user’s SL experience in terms of what they see or or and what the Viewer needs to be able to do in order for them to do so is an act intended to “deliberately try to bring the Team’s reputation into disrepute.” To try and gloss over the matter does little to redeem Modular Systems in the eyes of many.

That said, I could not help by smile and laugh at the closing attempt to dismiss LGG’s contributions to the project: Alas, part of being a success is having detractors, however we wish him well on his next legitimate venture.

“Legitimate venture”? Phox / Fractured / whoever wrote this, I suggest you go back and re-read that line carefully. You may think you’re very cleverly casting further aspersions on Lord GregGreg’s character; but that’s the danger when trying to engage in clever wordplay: one is all to often hoist by one’s own petard as one’s words collide – they have a habit of being read in ways other than originally intended.

I mean, are you really admitting the project LGG has just left – Emerald – is in fact an illegitimate venture?  Perhaps we should let the jury decide.

Grid “merger”: precipitating the identity link?

Posted on by Inara Pey

I’ve been bouncing around looking at reactions to the announced “grid merger” in SL – or more correctly, allowing 16 and 17 year-olds onto the Main grid – both here and elsewhere. Specifically, I’ve been looking at people’s thoughts on the potential additional risks such a move forces adult users of Second Life to face.

In the thread linked to above, Cabbage Acanthus and Derek Torvalar hit on two of my major concerns respectively, the matter of public perception and the legal ramifications people might face as a result in-world activities (the latter of which will clearly vary depending on one’s nation of residence), or which might equally cause panic / confusion.

In the same thread, Carole Franizzi touches on the core element of both of these concerns: that of identity. As it stands, we simply have absolutely no way of vetting for ourselves that whoever we are dealing with in Second Life are who they claim to be (i.e. of a given gender and over a certain age).

Until now, this hasn’t been an issue, and when LL themselves have tried to slide things towards a more direct linking of SL and RL identities, there has been an enormous – and in some ways, justified – push back against such moves. But allowing minors into the Main grid clearly changes things; particularly as much of the direct legal onus for verifying who we are dealing with on-line fall on each of us individually – as Derek’s quote from Canadian law illustrates.

It is true that since Wallace’s faux pas on the subject of such linking, LL have been careful to caveat any potential moves towards it as being something users will be able to at least opt out of, and Mark Kingdon went out of his way to expressly state as much on numerous occasions.

But will this now remain the case? Could it be that as minors are allowed into the Main grid LL will find the adult population (and by that term, I mean all of us using SL, rather than any given segment of the community)  potentially more willing to see RL information being displayed alongside SL information, if it helps verify people are indeed who they say they are?

I’m not for a moment suggesting this is in any way why the “merger” is happening – but one has to admit, in looking at the broader implications, it could have some “interesting” knock-on effects, intended or not.

The one-sided love affair…

Posted on by Inara Pey

I keep going back over the transcript of last Friday’s in-world presentation. In my first piece on it, I tried to give a reaction to the gist of the presentation rather than a review, so a part of me keeps thinking I’ve sold some of it short.

To be fair to Philip, he does make some valid points. It’s just unfortunate that these are outweighed by the feeling of having, “been there, heard that,” and the doubt that there is sufficient recognition within LL that they need to change their culture if anything is really going to change for the better.

There is one aspect of the presentation I did find interesting. When it comes down to it, Rosedale’s focus is very clearly locked on to the idea of SL becoming a place for business enterprise – as is evident from the latter half of the presentation. Not so much the business you and I might conduct – although he does give more than a tip of the hat towards this and the work of content creators in SL – no, he’s referring to “big” business.

Again, it’s a familiar meme. Throughout the Kingdon era, a good part of the focus at LL was the “business community”: we had the development of the (former) SL Works website into the microsites, the drive to expose how SL is “transforming” business and, of course the behind-the-firewall SL Enterprise product. No surprises there: as I’ve stated elsewhere, Kingdon may have had some ideas of his own for SL, but by-and-large it is safe to say that most of the direction LL took under his tenure was at the behest of the Board itself.

What is interesting is the frame-work of Philip’s comments on business (in the corporate sense). First off, he makes it clear that sorting out lag is a priority because it is seen to be hurting SL where bringing in business is concerned. He also implies that LL doesn’t actually know how well the SLE “behind the firewall” product is doing: An example that speaks to a broad point, SL Enterprise, we don’t know who is using SL.  We think it is used by educators, those casual users, by people at work. Really? you mean no-one in LL is tracking sales? Granted, this may not reveal who is actually taking the software out of the box and putting it to use on a server…but tracking sales would give an indication of the markets for SLE..if any. Is this comment in fact a coded, “SLE isn’t selling like we thought it would”?

However, what is most interesting in Philip’s comments on the involvement of big business in SL is his statement that, In SLE, we’re not trying to move away from use at work, but we aren’t going to work on deploy behind fire wall. We will work to support them on the main grid.

“We will work to support them in the main grid”. It’s as if Philip is hoping for a repeat of the “glory days” of 2006, when business from all markets  – technology, finance, footwear, automotive, television, and so forth – poured into SL.

But didn’t actually stay.

Worse, when reading these words, I couldn’t help but remember Justin Bovington’s (of Rivers Run Red a (former?) strategic partner with LL) outright hostility towards “ordinary” users, and his cries that swathes of the Mainland should be turned into “no go” areas for the likes of most of us, reserved purely for the “serious” or “business” user.

Now, to be sure, for SL to do more than subsist, it needs to thrive. Getting big business and the likes to invest is potentially one of the major ways that LL can hope to ensure it thrives. This much isn’t rocket science; the dots would appear to be there waiting to be joined up.  But again, please note the key words in that statement: “potentially” and “appear”.

Why are they key? Well, simply because there is a very big question mark as to whether the business community need Second Life as much as Linden Lab believes to be the case.

So far, we’ve seen two attempts as trying to lure business in: opening the doors in 2006 and riding on a wave of media popularity, and the launching of Second Life Enterprise. Both have been far from stellar. Between both we had the likes of Bovington and Amanda Linden pushing a “let’s get real for business” theme that came across as – frankly – openly hostile towards the rest of us.

But…aside from the early takers like Toyota, IBM, Nike, NBC, etc., no-one has really found am ongoing business-oriented use for SL; least of all Linden Lab. Oh sure, there was the flurry of activity around the US Navy’s project and there are various small-scale projects and case studies in the “SL Work” microsites; there has been talk of the US Army using (and note this, given Philip’s statement) SLE for “war game modelling” and the like; and even some US Federal Agencies have sniffed at SL. But the fact remains that these are niche markets with limited scope; and if SLE is going to be shelved, it is really hard to see them going anywhere on a scale that actually matters in terms of revenue development.

Certainly, the Grand Vision of SL being at the “centre” of all things corporate, “revolutionising” communication, collaboration, the way meetings are “held” and so on and so forth that have been dreamily blogged about on the official website (and note the central position of Viewer 2 – those still asking “why” Philip won’t “drop” it therein have their answer) remains little more than a gleam in LL’s own eye.

Of course, LL-ites will point out that SLE is only “beta”, and therefore it shouldn’t be used to judge SL’s “potential” as a “business platform”; similarly they’ll say that the reason business came and went in some six short months back in 2006 was because “we” (i.e. LL) didn’t “understand” the potential or what was happening.

Well, yes. SLE *is* only “beta”, and yes, to some degree, the influx of 06 may have been hard to foresee. BUT – and here’s the rub – none of these excuses matter.  The simple fact is that, outside of niche activities, as stated, Second Life simply isn’t ready for big business to pay anything more than a cursory interest in it; there is simply nothing here that is compelling for big business to invest time, effort and money in SL on an ongoing basis.

And this is where Philip’s assertion that lag is somehow a critical factor in preventing business leaping onto the SL bandwagon raises more than just one eyebrow. Compared to issues such as data security & integrity, confidentiality and a host of other business-critical issues that would need addressing before business dipped anything more than a big toe into the water of Second Life, “fixing” lag would seem to be something of a trivial item upon which to focus. Let’s be honest here, who didn’t read the aforementioned blog post (March 2010) lauding SL as the Next Big Corporate Thing  – or indeed Amanda Linden’s “Open Letter to Your Boss” (remember that?) without having something of a laugh and the rose-tinted manner in which the Grid and SL’s capabilities were presented in both?

Beyond this, there is also the question that if LL is serious about reaching beyond niche markets, whether driving corporations towards the main Grid is really the right way to go. OK – so SLE might not be selling well right now – but surely, if it is packaged, presented and promoted properly, it stands to be a much better product for LL than simply leasing server space. A single sale of SLE represents eleven years of income from a single sim, or the equivalent income from 9.5 sims over the course of 12 months. The financial math alone isn’t hard to work out. Plus, SLE checks the boxes companies are going to want to see checked: it operates behind their firewall, it is completely under the control of their own IT bods, it doesn’t have strangers flitting around, it doesn’t suffer from questions of data integrity or communications issues as much as the Grid does, and so on.

But again, all this pre-supposes big business actually needs SL or can, indeed, find a practical use for it. To date, it is fair to say the love affair has been entirely one-sided. We’ve yet to see a single runaway success for SL / LL where the corporate world is concerned. And frankly, it’s really hard to imagine that we will if everything is to be pushed back into the Grid itself.

It seems to me…

Posted on by Inara Pey

It seems to me I’ve heard that song before
It’s from an old familiar score
I know it well, that melody
It’s funny how a theme
Recalls a favourite dream…

Well after my recent gaffe in posting prematurely, the Rosedale / Komin double-act took to the stage yesterday as promised. I didn’t get an invite to the show – shame on them! – but couldn’t have attended even if I had, as I’ve been swamped by the demands of visiting family – shame on me!

I’ve yet to find a video record of the meeting, so have had to make do with ploughing through the V2T transcription Mallory Destiny has made available on Google Documents.

Given this is Philip Rosedale, it’s hardly surprising that much of what was said at the meeting sounds so very, very familiar. So of it almost hauntingly so. Let Bob say hello. He’s been instrumental in my coming back to LL. We’ve teamed up to run the company. Bob is a super star. Philip gushes, His skills are vast.  He was the prior CFO. He’s great to work with. We are a team. We talk at the same time.

Familiar? Somewhat. [He’s] a person with the rare and unusual combination of business leadership, creativity, and passion for Second Life that we were looking for … He has been in successful and highly regarded leadership roles … was how Philip once gushed over a certain Mark “M Linden” Kingdon in a (now deleted) SL blog post, before later stating, Much of my actual Linden work has been time spent with M.  We have literally sat at the same pod, 5 feet away from each other.

Given the tailspin SL seemed to go into after Kingdon’s arrival such gushing *might* be taken one of two ways by the more cynical among us – that either Rosedale and the rest of the Board have impaired judgement when it comes to appointing CEOs (and remember, it seems that Komin may way be in line for the post), or that Komin himself better be mindful of Kingdon’s less-than-auspicious-ousting at the hands of … one P. Rosedale and the Board of Linden Research…

Beyond the gushing, we get what is – if commentators are prepared to be completely honest – pretty much a retread of All We Have Heard Before, starting with Philip’s repeat on the  Tear[ing] down walls between SL and it’s potential and more and better use. and pull back and fix basic capabilities.

There is a lot that sounds good – at least initially – in what he has to say. He talks about making SL “Fast, Fun, Easy” and about “fixing” lag and crashes and even goes so far as to admit that Viewer 2 isn’t all it is cracked up to be and that as a result, users are “frustrated”.

But is there really anything new in what he has to say? Anything really defining as a means of showing that LL are actually beginning understand all that Second Life not only can be – but already is.

Well – and bearing in mind, this is only a transcript I’m working with, and one that seems a little disjointed in places, so it *is* possible some of what was said in the meeting is missing – in my humble opinion, the answer has to be “no”.

Let’s take the issues of crashes and lag: frankly these are not new phenomena; these been around since the dawn of Second Life  – so the idea that they should be a “focus” for Linden Lab going forward isn’t new. Rather, it is a retread of things that have been said in the past; and Lord knows, Frank Ambrose (bless him) and his team have worked very hard on the overall infrastructure of SL to make the back-end much less crash-prone and unsettling. True enough, the Viewer is another issue; but the fact remains that given that Second Life is now seven plus years old, and that the Viewer is central to the user experience, “crashing” shouldn’t require some new and heavy focus in and of itself – it should be part and parcel of LL’s on-going modus operandi – seeking to ensure the any adverse impacts of code changes, etc., don’t result in such a drastic outcome.

Same for lag. It’s not new. It’s been around from day one, so again, it is something that, so far as they can, LL should be keeping an eye on, both in terms of overall grid performance and in terms of how “high-end” they try to push things in the Viewer. That Philip needs to say LL are now going to be focusing on these issues (again) is perhaps an indication of just how far they have allowed themselves to be distracted by Bright Shiny Things (while raising the question of whether they can drag themselves away from the Bright and the Shiny in order to deal with such mundane issues as lag).

He also raises the issue of texture loading and refers to the roll-out of http for texturing loading. I’m no expert in this, but I’ve read what the experts have said and I understand that not only will the use of http significantly speed-up texture loading – it is something that people have been cajoling LL about for some three or four years, their pleas and suggestions falling on corporate ears that were conveniently deaf at the time. Are they listening now?

I’m also not entirely convinced by the “Fast, Easy, Fun” slogan (and that’s what it is really, a slogan, not a strategy). As with the comments about lag and crashes, and the (albeit somewhat correct) analysis of things like Viewer 2, Philip uses the slogan to suggest that getting Second Life turned around is solely a matter of technical innovation and technical fixes.

It isn’t; and this is where LL have always fallen down: fixing SL’s “woes” never has been purely a matter of “fixing” the technical. It’s about LL taking a long, hard and objective  look at its own culture and being willing to acknowledge that it is itself responsible for the majority of the key storms that have threatened SL in the past.

As so many of us have said  – some repeatedly over the years, others very eloquently – the vast majority of people at linden Lab simply are not directly engaged in Second Life. They have no personal involvement in Second Life or on-going in-world interaction with residents (weekly Office hour meetings don’t cut it for either). Thus, there is a huge gulf between their perceptions of what Second Life is / should be about and what is actually the case. And it is this gulf, more than anything else, that has hurt both Second Life and the community’s relationship with Linden Lab far, far, far more than issues such as the premature roll-out of a new Viewer and the like.

Not only has LL been unable to accept its own actions have been much to blame for upsets, hurt and even people departing Second Life as new alternatives continue to surface – it is potentially incapable as to even recognise or accept that anything it does with the or within the platform can be anything other than beneficial for all of us. Rather, when matters start to unravel their response at best borders on the patronising, “Yes, we know it hurts now, but believe us when we say this is good for you, you just need to learn to adjust and change…”, and at worse manifests an almost gleefully malicious refusal to accept that anything really is wrong with what they are doing – as evidenced by some of the recent blog posts related to Search. Between these two extremes lies what can only be described as indifference: a corporate shrug of the shoulders indicative of a “deal with it” attitude.

Of course technical issues need to be dealt with. It doesn’t take a genius to realise that simply getting Search fixed and running in a way that is meaningful to those using Second Life (rather than just blindly adhering to web precepts that seem wholly at odds with the needs of the community) would perhaps the single biggest step to making SL Fast, Easy, Fun. BUT… LL shouldn’t simply look to the technical and expect to find the yellow brick road leading to a nirvana where everyone is happily and fully engaged in SL; because that ain’t the way to go.

If LL are to achieve anything – then they need to look inward and tear down the “walls of culture” they have built around themselves and start genuinely engaging with the platform and the community. Whether they can actually do this, however, really is the $64,000 question. If they can’t, then sadly all that Philip said in the meeting amounts to nothing that hasn’t, to a greater extent, been heard before by those who have been around more than the last couple of years; and it is going to do little to make things better in the long term.

Starting over, or papering over?

Posted on by Inara Pey

Philip Rosedale today makes his first “official” blog post as the “returning” interim CEO (I use quotes around “returning” because face it – he never really left) – and it makes interesting reading.

The positive is that we once again seem to be moving to an era where Linden Lab is at least communicating to its user base. While Mark Kingdon cannot in any way be blamed for all of the woes that have struck Second Life since 2008 (for reasons I’ve mentioned before), it cannot be denied that one major failing within the Lab under his leadership was in the matter of open communication. Direct engagement with users whether in-world or via the blogs was a rarity. Kingdon himself didn’t really directly interact, talk to and listen to users in depth until February of this year – and then only once, albeit with a broadly positive interaction. While in the blogs, Lindens would occasionally appear, blog, and comment – but they turned cherry picking posts to which they’d respond into something worthy of the best politicians – if not an art form in its own right.

Now we have what amounts to – one the surface at least – some soul-searching from Philip, starting with his SL7B address and moving on to this blog entry which includes the welcome announcement of the possible return of Town Hall meetings – the (hopefully) first of which is to be held before the end of July.

Now, whether the old Town Hall meetings actually achieved anything or not can be debated; some will say almost certainly that they did, others will say that on the whole they were little more than PR and that the issues and directions for the future had already been determined within the Lab, and so feedback from such meetings would have little overall impact on matters.

While I’ll be returning to the first part of this view in a wider context in a moment, I have to say that  – in terms of the Town Hall meetings themselves – the fact that LL may not themselves taken much away from them that altered perceptions or thinking was entirely beside the point.

What the Town Halls did – and did well – was give those attending a sense of involvement with the Lab and with the future of SL as a whole. People felt engaged and motivated. While this may not have vastly altered the plans and ideas presented at such meetings (and I don’t necessarily subscribe to the viewpoint that the impact was minimal), the fact that people came away from them feeling engaged and having had the opportunity to say their piece doubtless contributed to the overall “good vibes” they had about SL.

However – and there is always an “however” – note that I did use the term “communication to” rather than “communicating with” users. The distinction here is important. Again, many of those who place blame for their woes squarely on the shoulders of Mark Kingdon should take heed: prioritised targets in Philip’s new strategy are – wait for it – the New User Experience (TM) and Viewer 2.1.

Yes, folks – Mark Kingdon may have gone, but his so-called “big mistakes” will roll forward regardless of anything you may say, think, feel or emote. The strategy around these was set a long time ago, and not by Mark Kingdon – but by Philip and the rest of the Board. While we may see some tinkering here and there and the odd shift in emphasis, rest assured neither is going to go away and nor is the Lab going to be swayed very far from the course it has set for itself.

And why should they, with regards to either of these things? Considerable time, effort and money have been invested in both. Frankly, LL would do itself far more damage by abandoning either than in sticking to their guns and trying to get both to work. and while they may have struck their collective thumb with a very heavy hammer in pushing Viewer 2 to far to fast – the fact that Philip has acknowledged this and is committing to rectifying matters is positive.

So, like it or lump it, Viewer 2 is here to stay. Now the important thing is to make sure that whatever voice we have is used to ensure genuine issues and concerns – Search and the rest – are heard clearly by Philip and LL and put towards the promised improvements.

Beyond this, Philip also identifies grid concerns as a major area of focus. While welcome news, this is not actually anything new. Frank Ambrose (F Linden) and the team have been hard at work on this issue throughout 2009/10 – and it has to be said that overall, the results have been significant. Yes there are still issues relating to smooth sim boundary crossings, some people still experience issues around Tping due to Mono attachments and the like – but on the whole, the grid is subject to far fewer outages, downtime and other glitches than ever before, and most of us – when push comes to shove – are enjoying a much better overall experience.

That said, there are still core issues that need looking at – even if they are much harder to address – as the recent series of server roll-outs / roll-backs from 1.36 through to 1.40.2 have more than demonstrated. And this is what I would hope Philip is referring to in identifying stability and performance as major points in the “new” strategy (simply because ensuring the grid is stable shouldn’t so much be a part of “new” strategies as it should be a part of “standard operating procedures”). It be sure, ensuring that every new release isn’t going to have some adverse effect on the main grid is a difficult thing to achieve: the beta grid is, after all, much smaller than the main grid and doubtless less impacted by things such as massive script usage, all-out combat scenarios, etc., – so missing potentially damaging flaws in new releases is a complex issue. But LL do have a habit of bundling comprehensive bug fixes together with new releases, so one cannot help but wonder if it would not be better to take a more cautious approach – as Philip seems to indicate, and reserve bug fix releases simply for that purpose and keep “big” features (such as Havoc 7) reserved for their own dedicated release – and then focusing interim releases primarily on fixing problems the new release has created incrementally.

The other major comment Philip makes is around the issue of XStreet / the SL Marketplace. This is interesting because the latter has come under much fire – and it has to be said that Grant Linden has been making a stupendous effort to engage with those with a huge spread of issues (many genuine, some perceived, a few down to simple confusion) and ensure that the appropriate feedback is given. Taken together with his actions, Philip’s comment should do much to reassure all of us that – again while LL are not going to abandon SLM as some of the wilder demands are insisting – the Lab is going to make every effort to ensure the new Marketplace is up to meeting its intended use and will be seen to be an overall improvement on XSL.

Taken as a whole, the blog post is broadly positive and encouraging. It indicates that while LL may not be moving away from its chosen path to any significant degree, some inside the organisation are willing to hold up a hand and state mea culpa and admit that the company needs to rescale its plans to a size that matches its actual capabilities and that whether they like it or not, at some point they are going to have to start, at least in some measure, back to engaging with the “pesky kids” (i.e. you and me) who run around their grid creating mischief.

I’ll be looking towards Philip’s planned Town Hall (or whatever he is going to now call it) in the expectation that what we’re seeing here is something of a genuine “back to basics” rather than another attempt to paper over the cracks which have now reached a size where even those in the lofty heights at LL can no longer ignore.