n0dalus wrote:
On 2/18/06, Miles Lane <miles.lane@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
A quote from that page:
----------
Why doesn't the screensaver preferences tool allow me to change the
settings for the theme?
That is why I do not use it. You can choose a blank screen, an
individual screensaver or all the screensavers.
You cannot adjust the source for the text that some screensavers use.
There are no controls.
Let's hope that GNOME does not decide to make breaks. Their attitude
will be, "You don't need as brake pedal, you will eventually stop
without one. We want to make things easier for the user and free up
their foot to tap to the music."
We are trying to take a different approach. We would prefer for the
themes to simply work. [...]
I would rather stop before I hit the car in front of me, a tree, or
brick wall. Put back the brake pedal!
There are a few reasons for this approach. One of them is to simplify
the UI and make it easier for the user.
Not even bothering to turn on the computer at all is simpler. Can we
expect gnome-poweroff-forever?
Another reason is so that
system administrators can more easily control (or lock down) the
settings.
----------
What about gnome-admin-xscreensavers? If I am admin, I don't want to
disable that which I enjoy to use.
With xscreensaver-base only, you get a blank screensaver. What more
would an administrator for other people desire than that.
Would not even developing gnome-screensaver (Made for use on many
desktops, Why gnome-screensaver name?)
Personally, I think the Gnome developers' know-it-all attitude is
stupid and offensive. Dang it! They take their bloody "present no
options to the users" too far! Idiots!
It is downright insane for developers to use this as a rational reason.
If it is not very customizable by the user, it is a bad approach.
gnome-word is coming out. You can launch it, but it will choose the font
that you want to use. It is just that easy. The program will even pick
the proper picture that you want and the exactly correct font color and
background.
In other words, Gnome developer attitude is plain hog slop. The only
thing everything that the hog needed was removed to make it easier on
the pig. If the pig dies because gnome thought that it would be best for
the pig to not be nourished. It is best for the pig after all.
I'm sure these particular Gnome developers mean well, and I don't see
the point in getting angry at them.
I agree that neither of the reasons they list are very good. Having
one extra button to open a second dialogue hardly clutters the UI, and
makes it no harder for the user. To let system admins lock down
settings, they should simply provide a "Don't show or let users open
advanced controls." key. I think it's still a good concept to provide
multiple variations of some of the screensavers in the list, but
that's not mutually exclusive to allowing advanced controls.
If someone presents a well-formed and polite request for them to allow
advanced settings, I think we could get further in resolving this
issue.
A docile approach in bugzilla usually amounts to a bug closed. We like
it that way. I filed a bug report for nautilus and it was closed with a
similar reason.
Jim
n0dalus.
--
When you say 'I wrote a program that crashed Windows', people just stare at
you blankly and say 'Hey, I got those with the system, *for free*'.
-- Linus Torvalds
--
fedora-test-list mailing list
fedora-test-list@xxxxxxxxxx
To unsubscribe:
https://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-test-list