On 3 Feb 2009, at 01:02, Benjamin M. Schwartz wrote:

> 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.


> - --Ben
> Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux)
> 5X0An1Y3zcLXrr3kP9itQ8pUHZ7ujjpD
> =YKXn
> _______________________________________________
> Sugar-devel mailing list
> sugar-de...@lists.sugarlabs.org
> http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel

Devel mailing list

Reply via email to