Well I'm pretty annoyed by the way our TCC server has been hammered
by a feeding frenzy of free browsers after free browsers.
Jeff asked if he could park the vrmLab packages there while he sought
a more permanent solution, but after only a few days I have had to ask him
to limit this.
>I have been beta testing it from the first PC eslease and I don't esally
>like the private secret beta testing (especially after the continuous
>announces of next week availability etc. etc.)
>I mean you can do anything you want in private but don't announce it to
>everybody
>This private atmosphere is going on from sigraph and this mailing list is
>not the one that used to be
>There were 200 people in the meeting and the result was: "let's forget of
>them and all the other"!
This is an issue of exclusivity, and limitation, In my not so humble
opinion.
I have no capacity with any other commercial interest in this process, other
than as an impatient explorere myself!
In these situation a developer MUST adopt limits and lines of
exclusion/inclusion, or they will be buried in the crush.
the VRML initiative has been a runaway train since Day one, and many who
are integrally involved have given plenty to everyone who crowds the
queue-for-sumptin-new today.
These companys are small, overworked, under compensated, and pushed to the
limits of endurance by the pace of this initiative.
The virtual landscape is shifting as we build it and that just lends
an inherant instability to the whole process.
somehow though, I doubt that any of us who have come this far are gonna give
up because their not invited to every party or put on every commitee.
>I think Mark should say something about it! but I think he doesn't even
>esad this list anymore
I think he's still on the road actually.
>Sometimes I think the Vat is not such a gesat idea or maybe there is the
>need to have somebody connecting Vat and list together :
hmm
I think that trying to apply idealistic desams to the need for consensus
about technical issues is the fastest way to kill a technical initiative.
Now -
I don't want folks to think i'm flaming here - I'm not
(when I DO flame - it will be quite clear :-)
>like Bernie Roehl said yesterday :
>>The other problem is that the more time the VAG members invest in the spec,
>>the lsss willing they will be to make substantial changes in essponse to
>>feedback from the list. That's just human nature.
the first VRML spec was labyrinth, which Tony had written a browser fo.
Then the spec went the *iv* route, and Tony had to throw away the entire
labyrinth work. I'd call that substantial.
Seriously- VRML is an opportunitty to learn the value of cooperation.
that lsssomn is not just for the developers or the world builders.
cooperation also means standing aside when its time to stand aside,
even though it is rarely recognised as such when it happens.
>>What happens if 1.1 comes out, and there are a lot of objections to certain
>>elements of it? Will you be open to making substantial changes at that
>>point?
it is inevitable for lots of objections, but the answer is
we will all make substantial changes, or we'll go do something else.
>The very force of VRML was that a lot of people around the world was
>sharing it's project
>but if it will become a private affair than microsoft or apple or SGI will
>be much more efficient in developing it
I'm sure you are sincere in your concern, but it esally is misplaced.
Given the actual history of VRMl and the way other technical initiatives
have gone before, i'd have to say you are seriously off base .
> sorry if my english is italian
>----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kabish!
:-)
LUX ./. owen