The "visual speed of operation" of palette opening/closing on the screen is noticeably slower on the OLPC than on a workstation. When the OLPC user fails to "slow down" with his actions, unintended consequences can result.
Was working (Joyride 2177) in Terminal with a removable storage device. Issued an 'umount' command - it was rejected with "device is busy". Went to the Journal, selected that device's icon, and (rapidly) invoked the pop-up palette to unmount that device. But (being spastic, and not pausing to make sure where the cursor was positioned) I had managed to click on the 'base' of the palette instead of on the 'Unmount' entry. Not realizing what had happened, what I *did* notice was the XO becoming extremely unresponsive. Went (took a long time) back to Terminal, and issued 'top'. It showed Journal taking 100% of the available CPU cycles. Decided to wait out whatever was going on. After two minutes or so, the high Journal usage stopped. Went over to Journal, and *now* I saw what I had done - Journal was showing me the files on that device. [Apparently it had taken Journal a couple of minutes to "scan" that device.] Switched what the Journal was showing to "normal", clicked (more carefully) on the 'Unmount' of the removable device, and all was back to what was supposed to be. I am *not* posting for help. But I *do* wish to point out that (particularly when dissimilar functions are visually adjacent -- e.g., "unmount" vs. "show"), failure to 'pace oneself' on the OLPC can bring on the unexpected. mikus _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list Devel@lists.laptop.org http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel
