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. <div class="gmail_quote">On Mon, Feb 2, 2009 at 6:26 PM, Gary C Martin <<a href="mailto:gary@garycmartin.com">gary@garycmartin.com</a>> wrote: <blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"> <div class="Ih2E3d">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 >> <<a href="mailto:bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu">bmschwar@fas.harvard.edu</a>> 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. </div>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 <div class="Ih2E3d"> > - --Ben > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- > Version: GnuPG v2.0.9 (GNU/Linux) > > iEYEARECAAYFAkmHl60ACgkQUJT6e6HFtqTXXACdH1WGy6vrO8JibUPy+AbPXQs0 > 5X0An1Y3zcLXrr3kP9itQ8pUHZ7ujjpD > =YKXn > -----END PGP SIGNATURE----- </div>> _______________________________________________ > Sugar-devel mailing list > <a href="mailto:Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org">Sugar-devel@lists.sugarlabs.org</a> > <a href="http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel" target="_blank">http://lists.sugarlabs.org/listinfo/sugar-devel</a> <div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c"> _______________________________________________ Devel mailing list <a href="mailto:Devel@lists.laptop.org">Devel@lists.laptop.org</a> <a href="http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel" target="_blank">http://lists.laptop.org/listinfo/devel</a> </div></div></blockquote></div> -- "Don't think for a minute that power concedes. We have to work like our future depends on it."  -- Barack Obama