On Sun, Jul 27, 2008 at 7:49 AM, Martin Langhoff
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow. I'm probing
to get more
Greg Smith wrote:
Hi Michael,
7395 has a release contract (see http://dev.laptop.org/report/18)
I believe that we will lose a lot of other work too if we don't fix it.
What do we need to do to get this assigned and resolved?
I upped the priority to Blocker (will negotiate from there as
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 10:16 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow. I'm probing
to get more details but I want to evaluate the options in parallel.
While I think
Greg Smith writes:
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow. I'm probing
to get more details but I want to evaluate the options in parallel.
...
This may cost us significantly if we don't show improvement.
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 06:16 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Hi All,
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow.
The sugar activity developers have been for 2.5 years as well :)
[snip]
- Activity or main GUI
I am steadfast in the opinion that stability and predictability are
much more important goals for 8.2 than trying to make significant
speed improvements. Also, do you know what build Miguel was basing his
assessment on?
-walter
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 6:16 AM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
+1 to Marc's comment as well, that was posted while I was writing mine.
-walter
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 7:39 AM, Walter Bender [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I am steadfast in the opinion that stability and predictability are
much more important goals for 8.2 than trying to make significant
speed
Hi Guys,
I need short term options and longer terms options.
What do we know already?
Where are the bottle necks and how much work would it be to improve them?
Stability is key and we're not going to sacrifice that for 8.2.0.
Regardless we need scoping on performance improvement options and
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 06:16:33AM -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Hi All,
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow. I'm probing
to get more details but I want to evaluate the options in parallel.
Focus is on
Hi Tomeu,
Thanks for the info.
No change in plan right now. I'm just looking for background info and
ideas.
Please forge ahead as already planned for now.
Thanks,
Greg S
Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Thu, Jul 24, 2008 at 12:16 PM, Greg Smith [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
I'll come back with more
On Thu, 2008-07-24 at 06:16 -0400, Greg Smith wrote:
Hi All,
I just got word from a decision maker in Uruguay that they are very
concerned about performance. They say that Sugar is slow. I'm probing
to get more details but I want to evaluate the options in parallel.
Uruguay run build 656
Hi Greg,
Here are the areas I can think of: - Activity launch time I know we
had some threads on this but I don't know where we stand. Can I get
an update and an evaluation of what it will take to greatly improve
this?
The best thing we can do here is to free up someone to work
SJ wrote:
SJ,
who still wants the hand buttons to be mapped to the right and left
mouse-clicks in addition to any other keymapping.
can you explain this further?
paul
=-
paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 43.7 degrees)
On 2 May 2008, at 10:57, Samuel Klein wrote:
SJ,
who still wants the hand buttons to be mapped to the right and left
mouse-clicks in addition to any other keymapping.
Sorry, not me – I **really** want the hand keys implemented with the
original intended scrolling behaviour. Perhaps once the
On Fri, May 2, 2008 at 9:02 AM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 2 May 2008, at 10:57, Samuel Klein wrote:
SJ,
who still wants the hand buttons to be mapped to the right and left
mouse-clicks in addition to any other keymapping.
Sorry, not me – I **really** want the hand
eben wrote:
The right button is going to be used solely to invoke palettes on
objects/buttons (immediately, rather than on delay like rollover),
which is nearly consistent with its use for contextual menus on other
OSes, and should indeed be a time saver for more advanced users. I
Michael Stone writes:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:58:06PM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
* It deals with the problem of children clicking on 2-3 activities
at the same time, which proved to be a real issue in the field
(will faster activities address this? not sure).
If you actually
On Thu, May 1, 2008 at 1:01 PM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On 1 May 2008, at 16:24, Albert Cahalan wrote:
For other reasons (GUI complexity and the OOM killer), the ability
to launch multiple activities should be disabled by default.
Do you mean 2+ instances of one activity,
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 7:21 PM, Gary C Martin [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Sure, but rather than a useful tool, I would call measuring as the
only possible base on which decide actual work that needs to be done.
We could be refactoring and recoding for years and don't get any
noticeable
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a completely different approach to activity launching in the
works (I've been hacking it up myself...I need some help from the pros
to finish it!)
Why are we building a splash screen instead of speeding up
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:26 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:01 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
We have a completely different approach to activity launching in the
works (I've been hacking it up myself...I need some help from the pros
Broken or not, they are going to be written. They are going to be
written by teachers. They are going to be written by kids. Not
everyone will write perfectly optimized code.
And, regardless, I want this form of feedback. I don't care if it
lasts 7/10 of a second. I think it will still serve
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26:12PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
We cannot presume that _all_ activities will be able to put a window
in 0.1-0.5s,
I think we are better served by presuming that activities which fail to
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:42:04PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
in the time i'd have otherwise wasted is free department, is
there currently (or planned) a mechanism to always launch
designated activities (either fixed choices, or choices based on
recent journal entries) at startup?
Personally, I
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26:12PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
We cannot presume that _all_ activities will be able to put a window
in
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 1:58 PM, Marco Pesenti Gritti
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:44 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:26:12PM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:42 PM, Paul Fox [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
tomeu wrote:
We cannot presume that _all_ activities will be able to put a window
in 0.1-0.5s, and probably don't want all the activity authors to
implement something like that.
I see as a good thing to improve
michael wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 01:42:04PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
in the time i'd have otherwise wasted is free department, is
there currently (or planned) a mechanism to always launch
designated activities (either fixed choices, or choices based on
recent journal entries) at
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 07:58:06PM +0200, Marco Pesenti Gritti wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 7:53 PM, Tomeu Vizoso [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
In a perfect world, you would be right. But that doesn't seem to be
the world we are living in, because so many apps seem to need a banner
while
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 8:17 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
* It deals with the problem of children clicking on 2-3 activities at
the same time, which proved to be a real issue in the field (will
faster activities address this? not sure).
If you actually want to rate limit
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 2:34 PM, Michael Stone [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:15:54PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
michael wrote:
Personally, I have found extensible autostart mechanisms which process
third-party data to be more useful to trojan authors than to users
, clearly that will be a Good Thing.
(for some reason this isn't noticeably the case on my current
ubuntu (gutsy) laptop.)
(this is wandering from sugar performance perceptions.)
paul
=-
paul fox, [EMAIL PROTECTED] (arlington, ma, where it's 45.0 degrees
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:54:15PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
michael wrote:
Depends. Any software you run can write to your .xsession, yes?
Afterward, will you really notice an extra instance of 'bash', or
'kdmgd', or some other nonsense running in the background, capturing all
your
michael wrote:
On Tue, Apr 29, 2008 at 02:54:15PM -0400, Paul Fox wrote:
michael wrote:
Depends. Any software you run can write to your .xsession, yes?
Afterward, will you really notice an extra instance of 'bash', or
'kdmgd', or some other nonsense running in the background,
Michael Stone wrote:
Personally, I have found extensible autostart mechanisms which process
third-party data to be more useful to trojan authors than to users so
I'm mildly inclined to consider such mechanisms to be a misfeatures
Then don't make it easily extensible. I already manually change
One thing I observe is that it takes considerable time from when I
click on 'Shutdown' in the Main view, until the XO actually stops.
Happened to see the Linux shutdown messages (Is there a way to ask
for these instead of the don't do these screen?) and it seemed to
several times attempt to do
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 3:58 PM, Mikus Grinbergs [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
One thing I observe is that it takes considerable time from when I
click on 'Shutdown' in the Main view, until the XO actually stops.
Thank you, I'd like to ask the people with actual machines to write to
this list with
We should be careful as we make this analysis that we don't overly
bias the discussion towards the perception of developers rather than
the children and teachers. Perhaps Carla can chime in based on her
experiences in NIgeria, India, Peru, and Mexico.
-walter
On Mon, Apr 28, 2008 at 11:10 AM,
I'm neither a child nor a teacher, so this opinion is personal :
What you want to avoid is having the user decide my intent has been
ignored, when in fact it is something under the covers that is
delaying the completion of his intent.
The best way I can think of to avoid the user making a
39 matches
Mail list logo
