Re: Xscreensaver problem with contol center

[jgotts linuxsavvy com]

In message <20001207163702 A3433 flux>, Ian Peters writes:

>On Thu, Dec 07, 2000 at 04:29:58PM -0500, jgotts linuxsavvy com wrote:
>> In message <20001207022137 A11233 flux>, Ian Peters writes:

>> >alternative configuration (Jamie Zawinski doesn't believe that users
>> >should see a small version of the screensaver, so he maintains his
>> >own).

>> Are you sure about this?  It sounds wrong.

>I work with Bradford (the new control center maintainer).  He talked
>with Jamie about the new capplet for the control center, and Jamie has
>always been against a preview version, arguing that it does not always
>accurately represent how the screen hack will appear full size.

Well, he's right, some modes' previews are totally wrong, i.e. decayscreen.
Perhaps something needs to be done about modes like this, like a textual
description.

>> I think the reason he implemented -crapplet is that gnomecc uses a really
>> bizarre scheme to define modes, e.g.

>> /usr/share/control-center/.data/Morph3d.desktop

>> .data seems pretty bizarre to me.  Also, when Jamie adds new modes to
>> xscreensaver they don't automatically show up in gnomecc.  I'm not strictly 
>a
>> complainer, I've added a few .data files myself.

>> The maintainer of gnomecc is hard at work on a new screensaver applet which
>> fixes these limitations.  For now, though, -crapplet isn't bad at all, at le
>ast
>> for the moment.

>It's bad when it:

> a) silently replaces what the user is used to without asking
> b) crashes because xscreensaver was compiled without support for
>    GNOME
> c) asks the user to type in the command line of the screen hack
>    themselves, pointing them to the man page when they click on the
>    Help button, rather than giving them a graphical configuration
>    method.

b), I think, is the real problem.  It's just a software bug.  Is changing the
defaults in the unstable tree of a distribution so bad, though?

>I agree that the current scheme isn't perfect, but it does make it
>easier for the average user to configure their screensaver.  The
>Debian maintainers choice to silently replace the screensaver capplet
>with xscreensaver-demo --crapplet, a less friendly non-functional
>configuration method, was a mistake.

Cheers,
John

--
John GOTTS <jgotts linuxsavvy com>  http://www.linuxsavvy.com/staff/jgotts