[sugar] Performance

[Joel Rees]

On ?? 20/07/27, at 13:56, Albert Cahalan wrote:

> 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. Send me
>> ideas. Any quick wins would be considered, even if they have a  
>> downside
>> in another metric.
>
> Two alternatives to offer:
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Edubuntu
> http://edubuntu.org/
>
> http://wiki.laptop.org/go/Xfce
> http://www.xfce.org/
>
> It's not Sugar, but it's not XP either. I hope even the Sugar
> fans will agree that if pushing Sugar means a win for XP, then
> pushing Sugar is not the thing to do.

As far as that goes, there is an interesting discussion on the  
subject of performance on /.:

http://mobile.slashdot.org/mobile/08/07/26/239231.shtml

I'm sure the raw discussion would not be appropriate, but quotes from  
it, and quotes from the blog referenced, might defuse expectations  
that are just a wee tad bit early here.

> _______________________________________________
> Sugar mailing list
> Sugar at lists.laptop.org
> http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/sugar
>

Joel Rees
(waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out,
to test Steve's willingness to switch again.)