[extropy-chat] SECOND LIFE not working
randall at randallsquared.com
Mon Dec 11 08:30:45 UTC 2006
On Dec 10, 2006, at 1:51 PM, Eugen Leitl wrote:
> On Sat, Dec 09, 2006 at 05:38:38PM -0500, Robert Bradbury wrote:
>> I must concur with David's points. Because there are a group of
>> people pushing SecondLife to the ExICh community without perhaps
>> providing sufficient "due diligence". I thought I would relate my
> Pushing is putting it way too strongly. My only point with SL is
> that's it's an *arrived* (Total Residents: 1916105, logged in last
> 60 days: 690800, Online Now: 14941) and *rapidly growing* (the one
> million mark was just 18th October 2006) medium, which is
> frequented by mostly young people, some of which are even aware of
> transhumanism and have been actively looking for transhumanist
> communities. Bugger technology, it's a communication and outreach
>> When Second Life was first mentioned here I believe it was only
>> available for Windows. So I waited (having finally
>> transitioned from
> Nothing wrong with supporting Windows, it's what most people use.
> However, SL supports Windows, OS X and Linux (alpha):
>> Windows to Linux on my desktop I'm not about to go back). It
> Technically, I've never been a major Windows user, but since Ubuntu
> 6.06 LTS
> there's arguably a desktop distribution most people can live with
> still some minor I-need-32bit-Firefox-because-of-Java-and-Flash
> beef, and printing
> support sucks as ever, but these warts I personally can live with).
>> available in an "alpha" state sometime late this summer. I
>> it and it did not work (complained about not being able to open a
> The missing libuuid.so.1 and libuuid.so.1.2 have been well-
> documented, and
> since the last build a couple of days ago (there seems to be a new
> SL Linux
> build every second day, or so) not even that is necessary.
>> window). Hours of googling, reconfiguring X windows,
>> rebuilding and
> If you're running accelerated drivers (the only option for Linux is
> there should be no reconfiguration required. SL runs fine in dual-
> head mode,
> which is about the only way to run it (triple-head is arguably even
> though I'm still lusting after that 30" Dell).
>> rebooting Linux (several days spent over several months) later
>> I did
>> finally get it to bring up the main SL window.
>> 1) SL as distributed can only work under Linux for people who are
>> either (a) lucky or (b) really know what they are doing and
>> want to
>> spend the time to make it work.
> If you run a mainstream distribution (Fedora, Ubuntu) you should be
>> 2) Linden Labs has little or no interest in active support for
>> users. .
> I disagree. De facto, SL is a proprietary platform, but if you look
> at the
> walk and talk, Linden Labs seems to be rather open
> More importantly, nobody will give a damn whether in another decade SL
> still exists, or become an open standard, or something even better
> has come
> along. Clearly VR has landed, at least in gamer circles, and given
> of nongaming platforms in SL, perhaps a bit beyond that. Whatever the
> next platform might be, it will have core features which will be a lot
> like current SL, only better. So there's no point in not getting
> used to
> such an environment, and build communities (which might or might not
> move elsewhere), particularly since membership is free (I decided to
> go with a year's worth of commercial membership, and 512 m^2 of
> land, which
> is still tax-free).
>> If you look at the documentation  you will see that it
>> requires a
>> Cable or DSL internet connection is only supposed to run on
>> high end
> Of course you can't do this with modem, you no longer can do anything
> online much below 1 MBit/s downstream, and some 128 kBit/s upstream.
> Is that much of a handicap? Not really. When I look outside the
> I see a gray box on the street corner, wherein optical GBit Ethernet
> terminates. Should I really want it, I could have 5/25 MBit or
> 10/50 MBit
> connection, and similiar or better bandwidth is available to people
> in Korea,
> Japan, Sweden, Iceland, parts of the U.S., etc.
>> nVidia GeForce or ATI Radeon graphics cards. So that excludes
> That's just not true. I run 2560x1024 SL on dual-head setup on a
> cooled AGP nVidia 7600 GS and a distinctly anaemic Athlon64, which
> still runs
> great. According to https://secondlife.com/corporate/sysreqs.php
> your gfx
> hardware requirements are nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx, or better
> ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Windows), nVidia GeForce 2,
> GeForce 4mx, or better
> OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better (Mac) which is a joke in gamer
> circles. This is high-end, only of 3-4 years ago.
>> users and users with any older hardware or "common" systems
>> (from HP,
>> DELL, IBM, etc. which do not have "fancy" 3D graphics
> I would consider a current $600 card fancy. I would consider a
> $1200 current
> card very fancy. Luckily, you can do great with a current $100 card
> -- passively
> cooled current card, to be precise.
>> This gives rise to people's comments that Second Life is an
>> only for "Uber Geeks from Mars" .
>> However, if one understands graphics processing and CPU processing
>> tradeoffs it is fairly clear that Second Life should be able to
>> reasonably well on Intel 810 and greater graphics chips without
>> need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card. It runs on my HP
> Come on, Computer Processor: 800MHz Pentium III or Athlon, or better,
> Computer Memory: 256MB or better and nVidia GeForce 2, GeForce 4mx,
> or better
> OR ATI Radeon 8500, 9250, or better is something you buy on the
> flea market.
> "need for a separate 3D tailored graphics card" is not quite
> correct, because
> you a) you can't buy a 2D-only graphics accelerator today b) any
> graphic of a modern system is already a massive overkill for SL,
> and ditto
> the CPU (single-core 64 bit is some 350 EUR, and dual-core is entry
> level with
> Dell & Co).
>> machine under Linux with an I915 chip (under Linux) and on my
>> Dell machine under windows with an I845 chip (both of these having
>> mid-range Pentium 4 processors). (So the Linden Labs system
>> requirements documentation is completely misleading.) However,
>> machines older than circa 2003 and most laptops one is probably
>> to have a difficult time using it. [So the undercurrent behind
>> the SL
> I very much doubt it. If you happen to have a doornail of a machine, a
> $100 AGP card will still make SL run like a fox.
I'll chime in here that SL runs slowly enough that movement was an
in waiting for things to appear last I tried it, several months ago.
all that's changed now. For reference, I have a 1.9Ghz G5 with 1.5GB
and a 3MB cable network connection.
After being quite unimpressed with SL's blink-blink-blink virtual
was convinced to buy World of Warcraft and *totally* blown away by the
difference in smoothness and apparent solidity of the world. This
that it's entirely possible to do a virtual world right, but at least
May or so of this year, they hadn't managed it (on Mac, at least).
Since I had already seen stuff about meetings in SL here by then, I,
assumed that those using it must have top-end gaming machines to get
more than 3 frames per second out of it.
Randall Randall <randall at randallsquared.com>
"You don't help someone by looking at their list of options and
eliminating the one they chose!" -- David Henderson
More information about the extropy-chat