Re: gnome-screensaver

On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 00:52 -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Wed, 2006-02-15 at 12:54 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > We are however facing a serious regression now
> Technically xscreensaver was never part of GNOME. All you do is to prove
> my point below...

Or not, as the case may be.

> Well, I'm not sure that many vendors nor users really care that much
> about what we include in the desktop set - they usually omit some
> software in the desktop and include lots of other useful bits. I think
> the picture you're trying to paint of our vendors is sad.. surely they
> know what to do, this is hardly rocket science [1].

Who is GNOME working for? Are we working for the vendors? If so, I would
really like a large cheque from each of the vendors to turn up in
recompense for the time I spend on their software.

No, we're not all lucky enough to have jobs with the vendors. Some of us
are working for the users and doing it in our own free time. Some of us
care that the GNOME we ship and give out tarballs for is sane and cogent
and makes sense by itself.

Perhaps we should all just give up and go home now. Perhaps the release
team should consist of someone from Redhat and someone from Novell and
someone from Canonical and someone from Sun and whoever else wants to
buy themselves a seat at the table.

> So I don't really see your point, sorry, and what seriously worries me
> is your rather silly suggestion about adding duplicate UI in
> gnome-screensaver. Do you really want to add UI that is most likely to
> go away in 2.16 if and when g-p-m should receive the questionable honor
> of being included in the desktop set?

I actually thought this was quite a serious and sensible suggestion and
that it should be a place where this setting is made available even
after gnome-power-manager. The setting relates both to power management
AND saving my screen from premature death.

I find your reference to questionable honour offensive. If this is what
Redhat thinks of the work done and the quality of the modules we
consider to be part of Desktop then why are they even bothering with
such a shit piece of software. Perhaps they should ship CDE, it was
popular for Sun and DEC.

> Discussing what's in or out of the desktop set isn't really interesting
> to me; I think at best it's [2] some blessing, a pat on the back of the
> authors and a more rigorous development schedule (observing freezes
> etc.). But that is just what I think.

And not at all a mark of a level of preparedness, testing, suitability,
stability and compliance with the ideals of the desktop.

> ship xscreensaver instead.

So is this the course of action you're recommending?


Davyd Madeley
08B0 341A 0B9B 08BB 2118  C060 2EDD BB4F 5191 6CDA

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