Posts tagged opensource
Linden Lab Post- OpenSim & Interoperability?
Jul 18th
A bonus and rare two-post day here at MUVE Forward. The news of Linden Labs’ & IBM’s cooperative effort to teleport from the Second Life preview grid to a location on an OpenSim space has created excitement and raised more than a few questions. Brett Bjornson (RL: Brett Bixler, Penn State) asked several questions in a recent post that made a few thoughts gel.
Last week, Erir Reuters interviewed Linden VP Joe Miller (SL: Zero Linden) – Linden prepares for an OpenSim Future – to explore what Linden Lab’s strategy might be for the long term. After all, Linden’s current profit model is almost entirely dependent upon land sales and management; if they are actively pursuing interoperability and the increase of OpenSim within the market,
“Linden is banking on OpenSim to bolster its strong position in the virtual worlds industry.”
How will Linden maintain profitability?
Naturally, Miller provided vague answers at best, but according to Reuters, he suggested that Linden intends to provide search and economic and trading services, particularly if the $L can be maintained as the “gold standard” of virtual world currency. Plus, Linden Lab could assume administration responsibilities within the virtual worlds standards naming and communication protocols in a manner similar to VeriSign’s role in managing top-level internet domains.
I think the “very specific plans” Miller mentioned during the interview will be much grander and different than economic and trading services. I believe Linden Lab’s future profit model will include:
- Trust Certificates for OpenSim operators/owners. As noted by my previous post – OpenSim, SecondLife & Interoperability – the transfer of assets from Second Life to an OpenSim space will require a trust relationship between the two grids to ensure that content creators’ rights and control over their products are preserved. Based upon a 2005 blog post by Gwyneth Llewelyn which I discovered via a more recent post by Danton Sideways, I specifically asked Tess Linden (during Zero’s office hours on Tue, July 8) if it would be logical for Linden Lab to offer fee-based “trust certificates” to OpenSim owners; she indicated that it’s possible. I think it’s obvious.
- Establishing secure, enterprise virtual worlds for corporations. I perceived this to be a viable profit model for Linden Lab when it was announced in April that IBM and Linden Lab had established a private Second Life server behind IBM’s firewall. In my post A New Hype Curve for SL: Private, Secure Sims & Open Source, I described how I think this may occur, why it’s viable and what it would allow Linden to accomplish – specifically, open sourcing the server code.
- Providing business data integration services for Second Life and OpenSim servers. In addition to being ideally suited to support businesses as they engage virtual worlds, Linden is also uniquely positioned to integrate OpenSim/Second Life backend data streams and institutional business data. Services and products that help connect OpenSim to Active Directory or other data structures makes sense.
- Custom virtual world solutions. Out of the box isn’t always the best solution, and there’s plenty of room for consultants to offer services which customize OpenSim server code to meet specific business needs – perhaps beyond the integration of business data. Linden Lab’s experience in building Second Life in the first place places them at the top of this list as well.
What does this mean for education? I believe this answers questions regarding the long term viability of Second Life – perhaps not as a unique platform but as a type of virtual environment; the revenue streams I’m suggesting allow Linden Lab to actively pursue interoperability between the main grid and OpenSims, as I suggested back in April and as they are currently doing with IBM. For me, all of that suggests that the Second Life type platform – either Second Life proper or the reverse engineered OpenSim version – will continue to exist and expand. It makes educational ventures into Second Life more viable over the short term with some level of confidence that work done now may realistically be transferred to an institutionally owned OpenSim server that potentially integrates with other business systems.
(No Ratings Yet)
Loading ...OpenSim, Second Life & Interoperability
Jul 18th
Last week, I noticed – like everyone else – the news regarding the successful interoperability venture by Linden Labs and IBM to teleport from the Second Life preview grid to a location in “another” virtual world running on an OpenSim server. More than a few thoughts have been swirling around since then.
The same afternoon as the announcement (Tue, July 8), I attended Zero Linden‘s office hours hosted by Tess Linden (Zero on vacation). There were two key issues discussed by the group that remain key issues which must be resolved for interoperability to be logistically possible; my non-technical understanding of those issue follows.
First, the transfer of assets from grid to grid presents a significant logistical issue for the protection of content ownership. As Tess noted, “Second lLife does not have copy protection against assets . . . [has] a permissions system that may not be honored by external grids that [SL] doesn’t have a trust relationship with.” To protect content may then require (a) restricting it to the main grid and not allowing movement between grids, (b) allowing content creators to mark their content as eligible for transfer between grids, or (c) establishing a trust relationship between open sim & Linden servers to ensure that open sims protect content ownership.
Second, maintaining identity from server to server presents particular challenges as well. A very simple level of identity management would be to have one system recognize or know an avatar’s unique, different identity on another and simply pass that information between the systems. That would allow for me to “teleport” from Topher Zwiers in Second Life to my Chris Alpha account on an Open Sim; but that’s not true interoperability. However, it may not be possible for me to claim Topher Zwiers on every Open Sim platform. In short, true interoperability requires some measure of central idnetity management: agent domain naming protocol or OpenID type system. like system.consistent protocols that amount to For interoperability to work as envisioned For me – and this may only be me – there’s two levels of “interoperability” in regards to identity.
With all of that said, I believe OpenSim and the notion of interoperability currently presents the same opportunity for educators that Project Wonderland does. This is the earliest news of interoperability being a reality; like Wonderland, I believe it will take 18 months to two years to truly begin resolving many of these issues – at least to the point where OpenSim with a connection to the main grid may be a worthwhile endeavor for educational institutions using virtual worlds for instructional purposes.
There’s a number of issues and questions that have come up since the news of the test; I have a few thoughts in that regard as well, but that’s the next post.
Two resources of interest:
Touring the Open Source Grids by Danton Sideways, May 26, 2008
Open Grid @ Second Life wiki
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Teleporting between OpenSim & Second Life
Jul 8th
A rare instance of simply passing along news from another site, but the news warrants it, imho.
IBM and Linden Lab have announced that research teams from the two companies successfully teleported avatars from the Second Life Preview Grid into a virtual world running on an OpenSim server, marking the first time an avatar has moved from one virtual world to another. It’s an important first step toward enabling avatars to pass freely between virtual worlds . . .
The full story is available at the Second Life blog.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Project Wonderland vs. Second Life
Jul 4th
There’s been growing interest by educators in MUVE’s other than Second Life: OpenSim, Project Wonderland, Qwaq, Croquet etc. This past week, I (again) attended the Sled Roundtable that AJ Brooks (pictured left in suit, RL: AJ Kelton) hosts each Tuesday at Montclair State University (3:30 SLT). The focus of the discussion was Project Wonderland and other open grid/source alternatives to Second Life, and on short notice, Alan Levine (SL: CDB Barkley, pictured left in red) joined the group as a guest speaker. The conversation, for me, confirmed a few thoughts I noted previously, pinpointed perhaps the primary purpose of Wonderland, and ultimately helped frame the virtual environment landscape a little better while perhaps providing a longer term answer to the question I asked back in December.
First, Alan confirmed several of my initial thoughts regarding Project Wonderland. When asked how Project Wonderland is different from Second Life, Alan commented that Wonderland “is NOT a user generated world” (his emphasis) and that “3d objects can be built in outside tools (Maya, etc).” For me, this confirms the my initial impression that Wonderland may not support collaborative, real-time building efforts very well, and that the Second Life build tools are more accessible (both in access and learning curve) to a broader audience. Alan also confirmed that (a) Wonderland is still very early in the development process, using the term “alpha-ish – maybe beta” to describe it; and (b) the ability to customize Wonderland may be beyond the reach of many institutions since, as he noted, “doing anything custom calls for some serious java skills.”
Second, Alan’s comments help to pinpoint perhaps the primary function and purpose of Wonderland. In describing the benefits of Project Wonderland, Alan said that it “can be more ‘controlled’ – run behind firewalls” and “connected to authentication services” plus “it is more built on the ability to collaborate” through “application sharing.” And, when asked if it was “more like Qwaq” – Alan responded that Wonderland is “IN function like Qwaq” (as opposed to the design or underlying development standards, I guess). Wonderland is particularly well suited to “share any app you run on a desktop . . . co-browse web sites . . . work on shared apps together . . . and there are some interesting potentials for connecting to other net apps.” However, “each server is its own world” and Alan was “not sure if there is a central avatar/identity manager.” For me, all of that suggests that Wonderland is ideally suited as a virtual meeting space – moreso than it is a build and content delivery space; the application sharing, telephony & voice communication tools and private chat capabilities enabled by a server platform that can be more controlled, run behind firewalls and connected to authentication services all point to a tool intended for supporting business-centered collaboration – even within the higher education industry.
The bigger picture I take from this and several other recent conversations is that virtual worlds appear to be falling into one of two types. Second Life, Active Worlds, and There are content class virtual worlds. The usefulness of content class virtual worlds is the user/resident generated content; SL is designed around the ability to build, share and interact with virtual content. Many of the tools to support business and collaboration have been slower to develop in Second Life: voice communication, in-world web access, etc. In contrast, Qwak/Croquet, Project Wonderland and IBM’s proprietary Metaverse are business class virtual worlds. Project Wonderland focuses on the ability to support business needs: application sharing, integration with existing authentication services & business data platforms, voice communication, and business class scalability etc. And, as perhaps expected, it doesn’t emphasize the visual experience; Alan noted that “the avatars are, well ugly,” and as noted above, it’s not as easy to deliver robust content within Wonderland.
The long term question will be whether the current business-class virtual worlds will begin to develop content-class type capabilities or vice versa. Until that happens, I believe educational institutions may realistically engage Project Wonderland AND Second Life but for drastically different reasons and unique purposes. Of course, the issue of which business or content-class virtual world is the “best of class” remains to be answered. Given the NMC/Sun partnership, Wonderland may be the best option in the business class, particularly for educational institutions, and at the moment, Second Life is likely the top option in the content-class for secondary and post-secondary educators and institutions. I do wonder about the extent to which elementary education may or could be using virtual worlds targeted to the under 13 age groups (Webkinz World etc).
As a final note, I’d again like to recommend AJ Kelton’s (SL: AJ Brooks) regularly scheduled Sled Roundtable on Tuesday afternoons at 3:30SLT on Montclair State CHSSSouth (slurl). This group is routinely attracting 35+ Sleducators for very active discussions on pertinent topics.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...A New Hype Curve for SL: Private, Secure Sims & Open Source
Apr 3rd
Semi-breaking news is worth a mention here followed by an educational and instructional design type perspective. The story was scooped by Reuters, although apparently ahead of the wishes of Linden Lab & IBM. In short,
IBM said on Wednesday it will become the first company to host private regions of the Second Life Grid on its own servers, marking a new focus by Linden Lab on serving corporate customers.
There are additional links to the story below which are drawn from my diigo/delicious feed; as I add additional stories to that feed, links to them will show below. Check back for updates.
Before I get to the implications and issues I see relevant to education, I *have* to point to point out a blog post written in late September of 2006 that predicted a transition for Linden Labs into the business of being a “secure virtual host . . . perhaps focusing on enterprise islands.”
Now. Potential implications and issues.
First, I believe this may reinvigorate the declining hype curve regarding Second Life, or perhaps more accurately, it will create a new hype curve. Big business entered Second Life initially looking to explore and exploit the marketing potential of the platform. In contrast, this move by Linden Lab and IBM focuses on the collaboration potential of Second Life for global organizations: reducing travel costs, increasing communication, establishing deeper relationships within an organization, etc. It will be interesting to see how many businesses jump into (or back into) Second Life for the collaborative possibilities; if the hype curve does heat back up, it may benefit educators attempting to sell administrators on a Second Life
Second, the initial report, along with earlier speculation, suggests that this is a transition in business model for Linden Lab. They are uniquely positioned to be the unquestioned leader for managing secure, private servers for corporate & organizational clients . . .
As originators of Second Life, likely minders of the open source platform development, and a 3D world hosting service, Linden Lab could roll out another platform that would be compatible with the original, but which was improved in a number of ways . . .
This transition enable subsequent changes which have further applications.
Third, with Linden Lab transitioning it’s business model to focus on private, secure Second Life servers for corporate/organizational clients, it becomes feasible, from a business perspective, to open source the server simulator application. Open sourcing the current server application would facilitate the rapid development of the platform by the community-at-large; plus, institutions could explore and innovate on local, private secure simulators without connecting to the main grid. That’s particularly important for K-12 classrooms; a K-12 institution with a local sim and controlled access to the main grid could engage Second Life locally and then branch out to the main grid, with proper classroom supervision. Essentially, the open sim could better integrate Teen Grid activities with the main grid without increasing the risk to young learners.
Fourth, one of the first issues mentioned by IT personnel when I first raised the SL question focused on the concern that all of our SL assets would be stored on servers other than our own; that raises questions around disaster recovery, backup plans, data recovery and business continuity which are critical for the institution. Having the option of either using an open source sim behind our own firewall or having a private, secure server hosted by a company focused on that service may overcome objections raised by IT personnel to SL projects.
Fifth, the early reports all suggest that interoperability is becoming a reality. At the very least, the interoperability between the private, secure sims and the main grid is a reality, for IBM at least, and as that business grows so to will the development of established interoperability standards and protocols. If this transition leads to open sourcing of the simulator, the worldwide development of an open sourced simulator would simultaneously require and facilitate interoperability as well.
There were a few other thoughts floating around. Most of them are related to open source sim; if something else surfaces, I’ll post here. The articles I’m tagging related to this story are below.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...Could Open Source overwhelm the SL Economy?
Jun 10th
I actually started this post before the others, but my thoughts regarding the necessity, desirability and condition of the Second Life economy continued to evolve throughout the conference.
At NMC 2007 Summer Conference, Ted Castronova opened the first day of the conference with a keynote on virtual worlds. Two comments during the keynote piqued my interest and prompted to ideas.
- Professor Castronova mentioned the “constrained budget” mechanism for determining avatar skills within virtual worlds, how that creates specialization within the world, and how that leads to sharing and trading of skills, content and services.
- An audience member later asked a question, “Aren’t there aspects of the Real World that we should leave out of the Virtual ones? Why can’t we just leave out the concept of having to pay for things? Instead of having to pay for that sword or car, why can’t we just take it?
The second of two ideas focused on the stability of the Second Life economy in the face of Open Source virtual goods and applications being introduced into the SL market. In First Life, the computer technology and related markets have been established since, at the very least, the early 1980′s. For a great portion of the twenty five plus years since the PC was first introduced, software applications and “virtual” goods were exchanged through a proprietary, capitalistic market. Microsoft, Corel, Apple and other companies were able to establish client relationships and loyal customers within that proprietary framework. Established relationships with and trust of proprietary solutions, I believe, created inertia biased against Open Source solutions; certainly Open Source solutions have gained increasing traction, but there are still many skeptical of solutions for which no one in particular can be held responsible in the event that it “breaks.”
I do not believe the Second Life market has such an established proprietary inertia. There’s no real reason why the traditional economy must exist in Second Life; I believe it simply may be a RL social construct which, in many instances, is unnecessarily being imposed upon SL. The only commodity necessary to create many virtual products is time; of course, time is valuable – particularly the time of a skilled, educated professional. However, there’s no physical products with an inherent value to be purchased in order to manufacture virtual products. Flexi-hair (wig) does not require hair to be collected or artificial hair to be manufactured for the flexi-hair to be created. The time to acquire the skill and knowledge to build the product is the issue.
So, in a virtual world like Second Life, what would happen if one person sets up an open source flexi-hair store? What if one person willingly chose to give away their product? Unlike the physical world, the only commodity being sacrificed is the time it takes to create a “model” – and even that time is much less than it is in the physical world: copy and paste works VERY quickly. PLUS, unlike in the physical world, EVERY one in Second Life can easily acquire a copy; SL residents don’t have to catch a plane or drive a car to the Free Flexi-Hair store, and there’s certainly no shipping cost. How disruptive could ONE open source offering of quality basic products – like clothing, flexi-hair, jewelry, virtual animals, trees and other landscaping items – be to the SL market?
The question, for me, becomes, “How long will it take for the SL economy to shift away from basic products like the ones I just mentioned toward services and products that require greater knowledge and skill sets? ” And, should the education community work to hasten that shift by openly sharing with one another and the SL general populace – a range of quality products that allow us to move past the simpler markets? What would innovators currently selling flexi-hair and quality clothing begin to sell and create if their market disappeared?
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...SL Moves to Open Source
Jan 8th
This is by no means a scoop on my part, and it’s not specifically real life education in second life. However, the news that the Second Life client application is now open source and that there are plans for the server application to be open source in the future is extremely relevant to educators at all levels.
A quick, time-sensitive side note: Linden Labs has a Technical Town Hall scheduled for tomorrow, January 9th at 5-6pm CST to answer additional questions about SL Open Source; the Q&A will, of course, be in-world at Pooley Stage. Now, back to the importance of Open Source SL for educators . . .
First, Linden Labs is embracing the Open Source & Open Content movement. The Open Source/Content movement has been building for some time in the education market; it has not yet reached critical mass, and the full reach of the OS/C influence has yet to be seen or estimated. But, with an increasing number of institutions participating in the movement – MIT, Rice University, Berkeley and others – open educational content is becoming a reality. For Linden Labs, a large and somewhat influential player in the current proprietary market, to open source their client sets a precedent for others to follow, and it makes a proprietary interface open to modification by those striving to incorporate the technology into learning environments. If/when the server application is open sourced, educators and the general community at large will benefit further. Very simply, when large, profitable companies make their products more accessible and financially available to the general public, educators benefit.
Second, open sourcing creates opportunities for educational developers. A group on my mind currently that should definitely benefit and thrive from the Open Sourcing of SL is the Sloodlers (SL group). Sloodle is a modified version of the open source learning management system Moodel; Sloodle seeks to merge the existing learning management system into the Second Life environment, basically creating an in-world content management system for educators delivering instruction via SL which may also be mirrored via a traditional website. Given the Open Sourcing of SL, it should now be possible for Sloodlers to create, if necessary, a customized, open source version of the SL interface that can support learning more effectively than the original SL viewer. At the very least, the open source allows a better understanding of the viewer which will enable the creation of tools that further enhance the SL experience for learners.
(No Ratings Yet) Loading ...
Hot Topics