[Sugar-devel] Is it possible to disable "sharing" for an Activity?

[Carol Farlow Lerche]

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 <gary at 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
> >> <bmschwar at 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 at lists.sugarlabs.org
> > http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
>
> _______________________________________________
> Devel mailing list
> Devel at 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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.laptop.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090202/ded25a73/attachment.html>