Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second Life.
I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.
I spent some time hanging out with some Linden Lab folks at the Lang.Net conference last week, and there's interest on Linden's part in helping to set this up.
I don't really know my way around Second Life all that well, and I know that there are some Ruby folk who are already hanging out there - perhaps we could marshal our forces to make this happen?
John Lam wrote: > Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if > there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second > Life.
That's a really interesting idea, count me in, and I will be willing to help with it as needed.
> Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if > there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second > Life.
> I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer > conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the > problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.
Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it. According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at 100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240 attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that external people would have even more problems.
If Linden Lab is able to solve this so that we could have potentially a *lot* of people observing from Second Life (and if it were possible, for example, to have "live" video broadcast in that Second Life region), then it might be really interesting.
Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all once I get the goods.
> Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it. > According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at > 100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240 > attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that > external people would have even more problems.
> If Linden Lab is able to solve this so that we could have potentially > a *lot* of people observing from Second Life (and if it were possible, > for example, to have "live" video broadcast in that Second Life > region), then it might be really interesting.
John Lam wrote: > Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the > folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all > once I get the goods.
This sounds quite interesting. I've been meaning to poke into SL, but I'm concerned that it may become a massive time sink for me.
There's actually already a SL rubyist community that meets every first and third thursday of the month. I attended this past thursday, and it was pretty cool. I even made a JRuby shirt for it.
Feel free to stop by, we're interested in having more folks attend, and there's a nice big presentation screen and plenty of seating. There's even an in-world IRB extension to play with Ruby while you're there.
On 8/8/06, James Britt <james.br...@gmail.com> wrote:
> John Lam wrote: > > Thanks for the pointer to that info, Austin! I'm checking with the > > folks at Linden now on that limitation, and I'll get back to y'all > > once I get the goods.
> This sounds quite interesting. I've been meaning to poke into SL, but > I'm concerned that it may become a massive time sink for me.
Charles O Nutter wrote: > There's actually already a SL rubyist community that meets every first and > third thursday of the month. I attended this past thursday, and it was > pretty cool.
Excuse my ignorance and uncoolness, but what is Second Life? Is it a Sims-Online type of thing? Do I need an avatar? Where do I go? Duh?
>> There's actually already a SL rubyist community that meets every first >> and >> third thursday of the month. I attended this past thursday, and it was >> pretty cool.
> Excuse my ignorance and uncoolness, but what is Second Life? Is it a > Sims-Online type of thing? Do I need an avatar? Where do I go? Duh?
> There's actually already a SL rubyist community that meets every first and > third thursday of the month. I attended this past thursday, and it was > pretty cool. I even made a JRuby shirt for it.
> Feel free to stop by, we're interested in having more folks attend, and > there's a nice big presentation screen and plenty of seating. There's even > an in-world IRB extension to play with Ruby while you're there.
I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).
However, you can place the conference at the *intersection* of 4 regions, which can increase capacity up to 200+ in SL. They can rent us a region at the rate of 3k Lindens per day (which is about $10 USD on today's currency). So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.
We could setup a registration page to limit the attendees in SL to a capped limit. But that nearly doubles attendence assuming that we can keep the number of real-life attendees in the SL space to a reasonable limit.
Since this is rental of space, everything there will be torn down at the end of the conference. But I think that's OK for the initial run of this thing. Perhaps we could also get RubyCentral to buy some land in SL so that the Ruby community can have a permanent presence in SL?
> Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it. > According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at > 100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240 > attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that > external people would have even more problems.
Well, wouldn't it just be better to ask the Rubyists of Second Life if we can use their space? They have a 4-parcel island already available for Ruby meetings and conferences with seating and facilities built and ready to go.
BTW, there's also pricin for nonprofits on parcels of land; I believe the folks hosting RoSL paid only about $150/parcel, far cheaper than the $1250 it normally costs.
> I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk > of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is > on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is > based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).
> However, you can place the conference at the *intersection* of 4 > regions, which can increase capacity up to 200+ in SL. They can rent > us a region at the rate of 3k Lindens per day (which is about $10 USD > on today's currency). So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days > or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my > company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.
> We could setup a registration page to limit the attendees in SL to a > capped limit. But that nearly doubles attendence assuming that we can > keep the number of real-life attendees in the SL space to a reasonable > limit.
> Since this is rental of space, everything there will be torn down at > the end of the conference. But I think that's OK for the initial run > of this thing. Perhaps we could also get RubyCentral to buy some land > in SL so that the Ruby community can have a permanent presence in SL?
> > Sort of. I've heard about Second Life, but haven't really studied it. > > According to Wikipedia, Second Life tops out on a "private island" at > > 100 simultaneous users in the server. That means that of the 240 > > attendees, only 100 could be there (if they wanted) -- and that > > external people would have even more problems.
Charles, can you broker this with the Rubyists of Second Life folks?
Also, can someone try and ping David Black to see if he's cool with all this? I've tried to reach him via one of his many email addresses but haven't gotten a response yet ...
Thanks! -John
On 8/9/06, Charles O Nutter <head...@headius.com> wrote:
> Well, wouldn't it just be better to ask the Rubyists of Second Life if we > can use their space? They have a 4-parcel island already available for Ruby > meetings and conferences with seating and facilities built and ready to go.
> BTW, there's also pricin for nonprofits on parcels of land; I believe the > folks hosting RoSL paid only about $150/parcel, far cheaper than the $1250 > it normally costs.
John Lam wrote: > I've got a response from the Linden folks. Each region (16 acre chunk > of land) is managed by 1 CPU, and the limit of avatars per region is > on the order of 50-60 (I believe the server limit in Wikipedia is > based on their current 2CPU per server configuration).
This sounds really cool ... but I have some questions
(1) I'm not sure what people are expecting. Are you expecting attendees to be interacting with non-attendees during the course of the conference. Remember that attendees will be fighting over limited wireless bandwidth and Obie's posting mentions "hefty bandwidth" requirements. Given that, I wouldn't encourage attendees to be on SL.
(2) Wouldn't a live video webcast plus a conference IRC channel give much same experience with much lower bandwidth requirements? Plus it would make it easier for attendees to interact (IRC has always been very active during the RubyConfs in the past).
As I said, the SL idea *sounds* cool, but I'm not sure what the advantages are.
"John Lam" <drjf...@gmail.com> writes: > So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days > or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my > company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.
> Thoughts? > -John
I can't believe people are paying money for virtual real estate. ;-)
>> So that works out to a cost of 4 * 10 * 3 days >> or $120 to host 200 attendees in SL. I have no problem getting my >> company (ObjectSharp) to kick in the funding for the space rental.
>> Thoughts? >> -John
> I can't believe people are paying money for virtual real estate. ;-)
On Wed, 9 Aug 2006, John Lam wrote: > Since RubyConf this year has sold out so rapidly, I was wondering if > there would be interest in setting up a mixed-reality event in Second > Life.
> I think it would be really cool if we could be the first developer > conference to be simulcast in Second Life. It would also help with the > problem of folks who wanted to go but can't.
> I spent some time hanging out with some Linden Lab folks at the > Lang.Net conference last week, and there's interest on Linden's part > in helping to set this up.
> I don't really know my way around Second Life all that well, and I > know that there are some Ruby folk who are already hanging out there - > perhaps we could marshal our forces to make this happen?
> Thoughts would be welcome,
I tend to agree with Jim W. that I'm not clear what the advantages are. I should probably state a couple of things, from the organizers' perspective -- which I hope will help, though please keep in mind that I don't really know what Second Life is. (I've tried to learn a little since getting your email [which is why I hadn't responded to you] but I'll go ahead and answer in ignorance :-) So I'm reacting to the kind of thing I *think* it is, and the issues I *think* it would raise. If I'm wrong, please fill me in.
We're almost certainly not going to want AV feeds, other than the official conference ones, set up during the conference. It's logistically difficult, and would also raise the issue of allowing another feed for another purpose, and another, and so forth. We're not in a position to go down that path, I'm afraid.
The bandwidth issues that Jim W. raised are also a concern. Getting connected at conferences is always a challenge... and the lower the ratio of bandwidth to constituency served (e.g., with IRC), the better.
In general, we want the in-person conference experience to be the full in-person conference experience. Again, I'm saying this based on what I think SL might be, rather than what it actually is or isn't... but my concern is that the expectation would be raised that whether you're at the conference or not, you're fully participant in the Q&A sessions and so forth. We don't want to raise that expectation. We may handle Q&A by having people queue up for a microphone, or by raised hands, or questions submitted in advance by attendees, or whatever -- and those logistics are going to be handled based on the in-person event and the people who are there.
That's my current take on it -- with the important disclaimer about my ignorance included :-)
I think that avatars provide a means for social interaction that isn't possible through IM alone. I'm still not sure what this all means at the moment, but I'm pretty sure we're witnessing the birth of a new medium of expression. What it means is anyone's guess ...
Here's another video by Tao that shows some incredible production values:
I'm still chatting with folks who have SL experience to figure out what bandwidth requirements there will be and whether this is even possible.
I think that if we do go ahead with this that it will have to be in such a way that we set realistic expectations for folks attending in SL as well as working within the constraints of the technology.
> I tend to agree with Jim W. that I'm not clear what the advantages > are. I should probably state a couple of things, from the organizers' > perspective -- which I hope will help, though please keep in mind that > I don't really know what Second Life is. (I've tried to learn a little > since getting your email [which is why I hadn't responded to you] but > I'll go ahead and answer in ignorance :-) So I'm reacting to the kind > of thing I *think* it is, and the issues I *think* it would raise. If > I'm wrong, please fill me in.
> We're almost certainly not going to want AV feeds, other than the > official conference ones, set up during the conference. It's > logistically difficult, and would also raise the issue of allowing > another feed for another purpose, and another, and so forth. We're > not in a position to go down that path, I'm afraid.
> The bandwidth issues that Jim W. raised are also a concern. Getting > connected at conferences is always a challenge... and the lower the > ratio of bandwidth to constituency served (e.g., with IRC), the > better.
> In general, we want the in-person conference experience to be the full > in-person conference experience. Again, I'm saying this based on what > I think SL might be, rather than what it actually is or isn't... but > my concern is that the expectation would be raised that whether you're > at the conference or not, you're fully participant in the Q&A sessions > and so forth. We don't want to raise that expectation. We may handle > Q&A by having people queue up for a microphone, or by raised hands, or > questions submitted in advance by attendees, or whatever -- and those > logistics are going to be handled based on the in-person event and the > people who are there.
> That's my current take on it -- with the important disclaimer about my > ignorance included :-)
For another look at how things happen in Second Life, check out this movie of John Hockenberry of The Infinite Mind with Suzanne Vega performing live in Second Life: http://www.blip.tv/file/57262
I spent some time walking around the offices of The Infinite Mind - they're floating 602M above ground. A Second Life resident gave me a lift up there on his jet plane / flying saucer thing.
I'm spending way too much time in here already ... :)
John Lam wrote: > For another look at how things happen in Second Life, check out this > movie of John Hockenberry of The Infinite Mind with Suzanne Vega > performing live in Second Life: http://www.blip.tv/file/57262
> I spent some time walking around the offices of The Infinite Mind - > they're floating 602M above ground. A Second Life resident gave me a > lift up there on his jet plane / flying saucer thing.
> I'm spending way too much time in here already ... :)
Omigosh. Do you know what a huge Suzanne Vega fan I am? Thank you for pointing me to that.
John Lam wrote: > I think that if we do go ahead with this that it will have to be in > such a way that we set realistic expectations for folks attending in > SL as well as working within the constraints of the technology.
I'm still wondering what exactly the SL folks will be getting out of the conference. I'm assuming there will be an audio feed. Will there be a video feed as well? How about slides, will they be visable? What kind of interaction will there be between attendees and the SL folk? Between presenter and SL folk?
-- Jim "planning on attending the SL Ruby meeting next week" Weirich
>>I think that if we do go ahead with this that it will have to be in >>such a way that we set realistic expectations for folks attending in >>SL as well as working within the constraints of the technology.
> I'm still wondering what exactly the SL folks will be getting out of the > conference. I'm assuming there will be an audio feed. Will there be a > video feed as well? How about slides, will they be visable? What kind > of interaction will there be between attendees and the SL folk? Between > presenter and SL folk? > -- Jim "planning on attending the SL Ruby meeting next week" Weirich
|
