Re: [Usability] gnome-screensaver configuration (or lack therof)

[Shaun McCance <shaunm gnome org>]

On Sun, 2006-10-01 at 04:56 +0100, Alan Horkan wrote:
> On Sun, 1 Oct 2006, Martin Ejdestig wrote:
> 
> > Date: Sun, 01 Oct 2006 00:49:43 +0200
> > From: Martin Ejdestig <marejde gmail com>
> > To: Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>
> > Cc: usability gnome org, Scott <geekboy angrykeyboarder com>
> > Subject: Re: [Usability] gnome-screensaver configuration (or lack therof)
> >
> > On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 22:49 +0100, Joachim Noreiko wrote:
> > > --- Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:
> > > > You are more than welcome to write your own or fork
> > > > gnome-screensaver.
> > > >  The GPL is designed to allow those who disagree
> > > > with the direction of
> > > > a project to take it a new direction.
> > >
> > > That's not a very helpful answer.
> >
> > Well, it's true.
> 
> Please refrain from such antagonistic behaviour.
> 
> I think we can safely say RTFM and suggesting a fork are responses which
> almost go without saying should be used only as a last resort, and perhaps
> are less helpful than no
> response at all.
> 
> If the submitter could be more specific about which exacty screensave he
> wants to configure we might be able to sugges an alternative approach.
> (The image slideshow screensaver might be an example of a screensaver
> which really doesn't need to be configured.)

That's funny.  The image slideshow is exactly the
screensaver that I think *does* need configuring.
Unless, of course, we're completely comfortable
with forcing our Slovakian users to have a folder
named "Pictures" (and not even telling them so).

And to everybody except Alan who replied to Scott:
Can we please refrain from the holier-than-thou
attitude?  It doesn't help anybody, and it doesn't
solve any problems.  It just pisses people off.

--
Shaun