Gary, I've used it for many years on machines much less powerful than the XO, often for an sshable net meeting with multiple participants, and I think you might need to do a few simple things to speed it up for yourself. (Remove fancy graphic backdrop, try for a smaller palette). These things are pretty congruent with the normal state of the desktop on the XO.
On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Gary C Martin <g...@garycmartin.com> wrote: > On 3 Feb 2009, at 01:02, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote: > > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- > > Hash: SHA1 > > > > Eben Eliason wrote: > >> On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 7:33 PM, Benjamin M. Schwartz > >> <bmsch...@fas.harvard.edu> wrote: > >>>>> In my mind, this would work perfectly with the above scheme, > >>>>> whereby > >>>>> any activity that already has max_participants in it could be > >>>>> viewed > >>>>> in that manner. > >> I don't see why any Activity should be excluded from such VNC > >> sharing, > >> regardless of max_participants. > >> > >>> Of course not. I didn't mean to imply such a limitation; only that > >>> the VNC solution would be the /only/ option after some participants > >>> limit was reached. That is, you could either "Join" or "Watch" any > >>> shared activity, but the "Join" option would disappear once > >>> "full"..."Watch" would remain. It's possible we'd have an upper > >>> bound > >>> on the number of people who could watch as well, but I don't think > >>> that's an activity-specific parameter. > > > > Oh! That's beautiful. > > > > Let's do that. > > I don't mean to rain on the parade here, but am I the only one who > finds VNC slow even on high spec equipment over a dedicated broadband > connection? I do use it occasionally for remote support, so it does > have its uses – but a handful of XOs in the same wireless spectrum? > Ouch. From a technical stand point VNC is going to be almost always > more memory hungry, more cpu hungry, and more bandwidth hungry than > most activity collaborations, seems to be an overly hopeful > collaboration method to fallback on. > > Happy to be proven wrong, and I guess it could be a Sugar feature not > really intended for XOs. > > Regards, > --Gary > > > - --Ben > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmHl60ACgkQUJT6e6HFtqTXXACdH1WGy6vrO8JibUPy+AbPXQs0 > > 5X0An1Y3zcLXrr3kP9itQ8pUHZ7ujjpD > > =YKXn > > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- > > _______________________________________________ > > Sugar-devel mailing list > > Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org > > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel > > _______________________________________________ > Devel mailing list > de...@lists.laptop.org > http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel > -- "Don't think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it." -- Barack Obama
_______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
