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

[Joachim Noreiko <jnoreiko yahoo com>]

--- Elijah Newren <newren gmail com> wrote:

> On 9/30/06, Scott <geekboy angrykeyboarder com>
> wrote:
> <snip>
> > A bug was filed over a year ago (
> > http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316654
> ).  The author of
> > gnome-screensaver responded with:
> >
> >         "I don't have any plans to support this. 
> My view is that any
> > screensaver theme that requires configuration is
> inherently broken."
> >
> > BROKEN? So then most all screensavers on all
> operating systems going
> > back 20 years have been "broken".
> >
> > The gnome-screensaver author, in h is infinite
> wisdom figured this out
> > and "fixed it" in GNOME.
> 
> 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.

The deeper problem is this:
If I understand correctly, each module in gnome's cvs
is its own private kingdom. There is no way for this
list or anyone else to compel the maintainer to do
something about this particular problem with
screensaver options. (Or in fact the problem of the
truly horrendous label text -- see archives from
shortly before the 2.12 release.)

Yet we're trying to build a coherent desktop.

I don't think this structure is always fully
compatible with that goal.



		
___________________________________________________________ 
Does your mail provider give you FREE antivirus protection? 
Get Yahoo! Mail http://uk.mail.yahoo.com