On 2/16/06, David D. Hagood <wowbagger@xxxxxxxx> wrote: > And why should those things be in *gnome-screensaver* rather than being > ported to xscreensaver? You'd have to ask the xscreensaver developer about that. Sometimes developers don't agree as to featuresets and priorities and new codebases are created because agreement cannot be reached. This could be one of those times. > And here we go with what is becoming the standard line from the Gnome > team - "You stupid user, you don't know what is good for you, how dare > you question us!" I am not part of the gnome team.. I am a user. And at no point did i call you stupid. Being uninformed isn't being stupid. Not recognizing long-term benefits which you personally aren't going to make use of isn't being stupid. I'm pointing out that there are long term benefits which you may not recognize as being important. Would you rather I assume that you had infinite knowledge and understanding of the differences between gnome-screensaver and xscreensaver and assume that your original question was only posted as a retorical device to start a bitch session? I could treat you that way, but I'd rather not. Instead I'm assuming your question is prompted by a genuine lack of information on the subject deserving of as thoughtful an explanation as I can provide, constrained by the bounds of my own human failings, and references to authorative information so that you can make an effort to learn more by reading the reference material I provide. > > I understand just fine about moving forward. I also understand that > moving *forward* involve progression, not regression. Actually progress quite frequently involves regressions. Progress isn't a linear process where every competing demand can be enhanced simutenously. Progress is messy and is measured as net benefit. And in this case i believe that the there is a net benefit even though some users, like yourself, will feel a short-term regression until the bits that allow gnome-screensaver to use all the screenies in xscreensaver-extras have been correctly worked out. I understand that > Actually, it is NOT being handled by gnome-power-manager, as several > other messages on that subject have already discussed. Bugs are bugs, and we are in the testing process. gnome-power-manager is there to provide DPMS support for the gnome desktop. I'm very confident the bugs will get sorted out during the remaining time before fc5. > > Moreover, again - why does this need to be a *Gnome* specific thing? > > Yes, JWZ is not maintaining xscreensaver, so maybe it is time for > somebody else to take it over - perhaps the folks working on > gnome-screensaver. However, there is no reason why it needs to be > Gnome specific. just because it has gnome in the name means its gnome specific? Did you read the page i reference... the goal is to build a desktop neutral approach so each desktop can integrate screensaver control into its UI in a way that makes sense for that desktop environment. Would you feel better if it were named freedesktop.org-screensaver? -jef -- fedora-test-list mailing list fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list