Re: Why is xscreensaver removed in favor of gnome-screensaver

[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index]

 



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

[Index of Archives]     [Fedora Desktop]     [Fedora SELinux]     [Photo Sharing]     [Yosemite Forum]     [KDE Users]