On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 5:59 AM, Tomeu Vizoso <to...@sugarlabs.org> wrote: > On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 12:12, James Cameron <qu...@laptop.org> wrote: >> On Wed, Sep 15, 2010 at 10:40:06AM +0200, Tomeu Vizoso wrote: >>> Basically, I don't see how this could work without being tuned to very >>> specific systems. >> >> I've reviewed the patch [1], and I disagree with your assessment. It >> would work without any tuning to specific systems. The learner would >> learn that system response correlates to the face. > > As said in the ticket, in some systems regardless of the load the face > would be always happy or always sad. I expect users to be confused > about this. > > I guess the intention is that after you start Sugar, the face would be > happy. As the user activity consumes more resources, the face becomes > neutral and when there aren't enough resources to provide a good user > experience (things slow down or risk of OOM grows) the face becomes > sad. > > Now, if you try this specific patch out in systems different enough > from the XO, you will see that the face stays in the same state > regardless of the user activity. Examples of such systems are most > modern netbooks, which ship with a minimum of 1GB of RAM and often > have CPUs with 2 cores. Another example are LTSP systems. Or systems > with less memory than the XO but with some swap. This is because the > current algorithm is tuned for the base free resources on the XO. > >> It would only work on Linux, but since that is a dependency of Sugar I >> can't see how non-portability would be an issue. The code gracefully >> degrades if /proc entries are not present. >> >> It uses documented Linux kernel interfaces, which may be invalidated in >> future, but those interfaces have lasted a long time without significant >> change, and there are many tools that depend on these interfaces. >> >>> Now, I seem to be the only one concerned about this [...] >> >> I'd be more concerned about your concern if I could understand how you >> drew your conclusions about the function not working without being tuned >> to very specific systems. > > Have you tried it out in something other than the XO? > >>> When people start complaining about their faces being always happy or >>> sad I expect you to help out. >> >> As a general rule, I would expect no help from coders who contributed >> code to an open source project in the past, but help is always welcome, >> and the contributor could be one of the first people to be asked when >> code breaks. > > As a general rule, code that depends on heuristics that are tuned to a > specific system wouldn't be accepted because would be very hard to > support. But I don't have enough time nor energy to discuss things > without end.
And this is precisely why we have Dextrose.... When deployments want something and upstream doesn't, the patch goes into Dextrose. No harm. No foul. david _______________________________________________ Sugar-devel mailing list Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel
