Sun Jul 27 01:32:41 EDT 2008
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
>> 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
>> in another metric.
> Two alternatives to offer:
> 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 /.:
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
(waiting for a 3+GHz ARM processor to come out,
to test Steve's willingness to switch again.)
More information about the Sugar-devel