GNOME Bugzilla – Bug 316654
no ability to configure the different screensavers
Last modified: 2010-12-06 10:26:24 UTC
The ability to configure individual screensavers like Xscreensaver currently provides. Other information: using gnome-screensaver version 0.0.13 using Ubuntu Breezy 9/17/05 i386 iso install
I don't have any plans to support this. My view is that any screensaver theme that requires configuration is inherently broken.
Well the first user didn't ask gnome-screensaver to REQUIRE configuration, just to support it. So I can't see any relation between the bug and your comment. Don't you think users should be able to make their screensaver look the way the prefer it to? Is that bad?
so, screen savers like "GLText" that let a user enter a custom phase or choose to display a clock, or ones like the morphing ones that let you choose a folder with pictures (most of us have many folders and not always in the same place, like on a network share, and those that are not english speaking will not call the folder "pictures" anyway) or a v4l stream or the desktop, these are "broken"? well, you include them, so now your app is broken is too. There are a few solutions: a) provide a settings button. b) remove all screen savers that come with any configuration at all (this won't leave much) c) duplicate the main settings into new screen saver options. eg: GLText-Clock, GLText-uname, GLText-fortune-file Is there at least a text file or gconf setting for "power" users to add options in? Even something as simple as an app launcher provides a way to add command line options and choose custom icons. I don't see the difference here. if you like, I'll add a seperate bug for the lack of i18n/locale/translation support due to you not providing a way to change the default user provided resource location path names to match their native tounge.
I'm with Chris on this one, most any screensaver has configurations, and in many cases the savers are broken without having them available. This has implications for i18n, where folders are in new places and text is wrong. It also has performance considerations, some screensavers needs to be configured to run properly on older computers. I sure hope gnome screensavers are not only for native English speakers with new computers.
(In reply to comment #4) > It also has performance considerations, some screensavers needs to be configured > to run properly on older computers. i'm also for letting users configure screensavers if they want (like David Prieto comment #2), but i think here it's reasonnable to say that screensavers which require lots of CPU/memory and don't probe the capabilities of the computer are broken: in other words, configuration is good, but *requiring* configuration to exploit the hardware reasonnably or not put the computer on its knees is broken.
Comment #5: I can only assume that it would be very hard to accurately determine what settings any random computer would look good at, not to mention the huge amount of hardware needed for testing. OTOH, it would be very easy for an end-user to adjust a slider for say how many objects are drawn at the same time until it looks good. I would agree if it was an issue of testing for "does have feature X" (say OpenGL) or not, but it isn't that simple. It's more like "how many polygons can this particular card draw per frame, with these drivers, that CPU and on this general setup". How do you do that? And how do you cope with a change in hardware? I'm all for autoconfiguring anything that can be reasonably autoconfigured, but I don't see that being the case for many screensavers.
Lots of people do not like the dumbing down of gnome-screensaver as can be seen here: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=120071&highlight=gnome-screensaver and here they are pointing out the absurdity of how Gnome project thinks reduction==simplification: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122823&highlight=gnome-screensaver and here is somebody changing desktops because of their irritation with the decision: http://www.ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?t=122254&highlight=gnome-screensaver and here is the bug I filed since this one did not turn up in my search: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=332111
*** Bug 332111 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
So, are you really THAT unresponsive that you will only comment on duplicate bugs? Man, people are stating valid arguments here and you're not even replying to them. You're not only harming the usability of Gnome, you're harming its image too since you're showing that you don't give a damn about how the user feels. The only reason you gave has already been proven to be wrong -a screensaver doesn't HAVE TO be tweaked just because it CAN- so please show some respect and at least give some valid reasons.
I've added a bit more to the FAQ regarding this issue. http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver_2fFrequentlyAskedQuestions
So are you saying there is a way to configure a new "theme"? If so, then where is this configuration tool?
Doesn't the "~/Pictures" folder requirement break a lot of internationalization requirements? I know a lot of distributions find that stuff to be quite important, after all.
ok, I have read the FAQ now, I I got your point. The division into theme/ engine makes sense and allows screensaver entries like "slideshow of my friends" and "slideshow of my pet" in the list except only a "slideshow-engine" entry. But you still have to somehow specify which images you want the slideshow to contain. Right now you would have to fiddle around with some config files, which is a regression. I think you should add at least basic configurability to the screensaver-themes. Yust take a closer look on gnome-theme-properties, which solves a very similar problem; it would contain n^3 entries if it wouldnt allow basic configurability, which is another problem gnome-screensaver will run into...
I suggest that the screensavers listed are not all that are available. Instead, it's just a list of "selected" screensavers without configuration. The user can "add a screensaver" (add button required) then he see the list of all screensavers available. He chooses one and is prompted for a configuration if needed. (for example, if he choosed "Pictures slideshow", he must give a folder). Then, the "new screensaver" is added. This way, you can have 3 differents screensaver that are, for example, three slideshows of 3 different folders. This is just an idea that cross my mind when reading all coments..
On the Ubuntu lists, we've heard tales of how the incredible selection of xscreen-savers have caused people to switch to a Free desktop. The WOW factor has caught their attention and the follow question has been "how get I get that too?"; in turn they discover Free software and in turn GNOME. This indirect-effect is significant, it is something unique that a user wants, but that cannot get with their present GUI, it sparks interest. Motivation happens! The next step is getting people hooked on a new toy. Watch somebody (a co-worker or family member) getting a new computer---the first thing they will do is start customising the options they have to make it their own personal space. The immediate they tend to choose to customise are ones that don't affect the actual usibility of the system; they are (a) the Desktop background, and (b) their personalised screensaver---and there are plenty of screen-savers to choose in Linux! Watch... this will probably keep them occupied for an hour or so. This hour is important, it is a period of goal-based learning. They user desires prettiness and they are achiving their satisfaction by pressing buttons, using dialogues and being rewarded by beautiful images. Secretly (and unbeknown to the user) they are learning how to use the Gtk+ widget set, how focus works, how buttons are marked with underscores for shortcuts, what happens when they press 'Tab'... That is their finest hour. As master of Gnome-screensavers, you are in control of about 45minutes of the first 60minutes that a new user would _like_ to spend using GNOME. It is your freedom to make this experience as rewarding, interactive and enjoyable as possible for the (new) user. The first impression is the one that they will remember, the one that they take away with them and the one which they will tell other people. Please allow the user to play for a full 45minutes and not get bored after 5minutes because there is nothing else to play with.
(In reply to comment #1) > I don't have any plans to support this. My view is that any screensaver theme > that requires configuration is inherently broken. Why? How can we who disagree with you attempt to convince you otherwise, if you won't give us you reasons? There are plenty of options I can live without, but I want to be able to: 1) First and foremost, I'd like to have checkboxes that allow me to select which screensavers will be enabled in the random selection of a screensaver to display. 2) enter the text to be displayed in "FlipText" 3) specify the directory to be used by the hacks that use pictures pulled from a directory (GLSlideshow, etc) 4) I'd like a slideshow that behaves like the OS/X screensaver, which doesn't display black around the border of my pictures. Instead, OS/X's slideshow zooms the image so that they are larger the the heighth and width of of the screen and then performs a "flyby", and "zoom in" or "zoom out" of the image. The current gnome-screensaver "Pictures folder" shows no movement and simply does a "maxspect" display of each image. GLSlideshow almost gets it right.
ok i'll bite on the whole theme idea... so i copy a .desktop file in /usr/share/gnome-screensaver/themes and edit it to change the name, comment, and exec lines to make my new "theme". well, it doens't show up in the list. now what?
On the Ubuntu forums there are a lot of users starting to complain about the way this bug is closed and concerned unimportant. quoting a user on the ubuntu bugzilla: I agree, the lack of configuration is a major usability bug. I would consider gnome-screensaver not ready for release as it is.
I'd like to reopen this report. If a program is not working as users expect, it's a usability issue and likely a bug to.
Perhaps the maintainer no longer receives bugzilla e-mail once the bug is marked resolved and that is why we are getting absolutely no feedback? Perhaps we will have to open another bug in order to get any response at all out of the maintainer. Sad.
(In reply to comment #10) > I've added a bit more to the FAQ regarding this issue. > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver_2fFrequentlyAskedQuestions This page appears to be empty. I got the following: "This page does not exist yet. You can create a new empty page, or use one of the page templates. Before creating the page, please check if a similar page already exists."
Take it easy everyone. Please understand that I'm not paid to do this and it isn't my full time job. Also understand that simply reiterating the issue doesn't add anything. Also, unless you are motivated enough to actually write some code or pay/convince someone else to do it for you then you are less likely to get what you want. That's open source for you. Please try not to make demands of me. I've added a stub to the FAQ about directory translation. Chris Weiss: I'm glad to see that you have actually looked into this. I'm afraid there is probably something wrong with your system since that should work fine. Try submitting a bug to your distro. Miles: Looks like someone upgraded the wiki and it changed the way the URLs are accepted. Try, http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver/FrequentlyAskedQuestions
> I've added a stub to the FAQ about directory translation. For us who use desktop_is_home_dir (or whatever that key is named), do you seriously expect us to have a Pictures folder on our desktops? Why isn't this stuffed away in some dot-directory like nautilus scripts or totem addons with the possibility to have the app open the directory for you? What makes screensavers so special they have to have its own capitalized main directory in my home?
(In reply to comment #23) > > I've added a stub to the FAQ about directory translation. > > For us who use desktop_is_home_dir (or whatever that key is named), do you > seriously expect us to have a Pictures folder on our desktops? Why isn't this > stuffed away in some dot-directory like nautilus scripts or totem addons with > the possibility to have the app open the directory for you? What makes > screensavers so special they have to have its own capitalized main directory > in my home? I believe the reasoning is that most desktop PCs have a media focus. Pictures, video, and audio access are all highlighted in recent releases of Windows and OS/X. While Gnome/KDE don't need to slavishly copy the UI of the dominant desktop OS's, this is an area where I think it makes sense. Users around the world are being trained to have certain expactations through their use of PCs. If we don't meet their expectations, it introduces more retraining issues. Personally, I am not fond of putting media files in hidden directories. Since (for better or worse) Linux remains an environment where almost all users must become familiar with command shells, giving easy access to media files in the user's home directory seems straightforward (although, I would have chosen "~/Desktop/My Documents/My Pictures" as the default path).
That makes no sense. To "normal" desktop users, the Home directory is not obviously seen and in many cases not used at all. The desktop is where many work (which is another reason they should be the same IMO, but that's another discussion). On top of that, a Pictures folder like what you mean would obviously not be used only to fill screensavers with images. And I sure don't want all my images in a screensaver... this is IMO a clear case for a special directory, like the burner or the trash. In either case, forcing clutter into either Home or Desktop is not a solution. Having special icons that link to special locations might be. Think "My Computer" or whatever it is named. Icons that can easily be toggled away. Which also would solve the problem of structures without imposing artificial ones upon those who do not want them, and do not have a ~/Desktop. Side note: even Vista is moving away from the hideous "My" prefix.
Please. i10n debates are not germane to this bug report.
A short-term solution for distros might be to hide+disable all of the screensavers that actually do need configuration (eg. Slideshow, GLtext). Not necessarily what the user might want, but it solves the letter of this bug-report and avoids the i10n issue.
Please fix this, i consider it a bug I cant have exactlly 3 bouncing cows :) Seriously there is no way to set an images directory or text. Also being able to have multiple screensavers was a nice option
So what's next? If someone implements the configuration in a reasonable way, will you add it to gnome-screensaver? Or is it simply 'not going to happen'?
i could not figure out how I'm supposed to add a .desktop file. please finish the "How does[sic] I create a new theme for a pre-existing theme engine?" FAQ entry. Until that's done, this bug must be valid because there is no way to set any screen saver preferences (the screen saver applet is in the preferences menu, but has no preferences? ).
Well I just yanked this useless thing out and installed xscreensaver. Then I thought what the heck, why fight it, I"M SWITCHING TO KDE!!!!
You know, that may not be a bad idea.
Sorry for this non-bug post. My previous post about moving to KDE was actually a joke. BUT I got a little bored and did the unthinkable and loaded KDE, thanks Dana (and Linus). I've really never used KDE except way back when during a SuSE test run. But KDE is really neat. Who'd a thunk something as simple a screensaver would get me off of GNOME, for which I have always loved and know inside and out. (Actually, xorg/ATI/AGP is why I was here originally.) I'm not sure how long my new facination will hold out, but so far I've had nothing but success and FUN! I'm not going to play the kde-gnome game, but I thought I'd have to share this. I'm sure both desktops will continue getting more awesome by the day. My Debian and now Kubuntu installs are really getting a work out. Have FUN use Linux!
I think it's a pity. Usability in Gnome should be about users, not about taking away as many options as possible. I like "less is more" a lot, really, but in this case it's gone too far. A screensaver is a personal touch for a lot of people. I like being a stupid, gui-only user and I should be able to set an url for a screensaver that parses an rss-feed. I should be able to not have my pictures in the "Pictures" folder. I should be able to type a text that flies across my screen. Without messing with .desktop files or whatever. I really like simplicity, also of that of Gnome-screensaver, but I'm sorry, Mr. McCann, imho you are wrong on this one. I don't agree with "any screensaver theme that requires configuration is inherently broken."
Please either accept this patch or create a new desktop file containing these settings. This configuration of hypertorus is much more interesting. --- hypertorus.desktop~ 2006-03-16 09:11:21.000000000 -0800 +++ hypertorus.desktop 2006-04-24 16:31:06.000000000 -0700 @@ -4,7 +4,7 @@ Name=4D Hypertorus Comment=This program shows a rotating Clifford Torus: a torus lying on the "surface" of a 4D hypersphere. Written by Carsten Steger, inspired by Thomas Banchoff's book "Beyond the Third Dimension: Geometry, Computer Graphics, and Higher Dimensions", Scientific American Library, 1990. TryExec=hypertorus -Exec=hypertorus -root +Exec=hypertorus -root -transparent -solid StartupNotify=false Terminal=false Type=Application
Miles, that file is not part of gnome-screensaver. It is most likely provided by your OS distributor. You should contact them about changing it system-wide. If you are using gnome-screensaver 2.15.1 you can just copy the modified file to ~/.local/share/applications/screensavers/hypertorus.desktop and it should replace the default (provided the original is installed in $XDG_DATA_DIR/applications/screensavers.
Hi Miles, This is actually a separate issue/improvement. I do totally support your suggestion though; it makes the hypertorus hack look *much* better. Can you file a new bug please.
I will open a bug report in the Ubuntu database for the hypertorus tweak. William, I have seen no justification from you for not adding the ability to select a subgroup of screensavers for the "Show Random" option. Please note, I am not asking you to commit to doing the work! I would just like to hear some rational for not implementing this. Also, I have scanned your FAQ. I am pretty sure you do not cover this issue. Thanks, Miles
*** Bug 343549 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
(In reply to comment #38) > I will open a bug report in the Ubuntu database for the hypertorus tweak. > > William, I have seen no justification from you for not adding the ability to > select a subgroup of screensavers for the "Show Random" option. Please note, I > am not asking you to commit to doing the work! I would just like to hear some > rational for not implementing this. Also, I have scanned your FAQ. I am > pretty sure you do not cover this issue. > > Thanks, > Miles > It looks like you've had a bit of a wait there eh? You're making too much sense. That's your problem. ;-)
if you're interested about removing some screensavers when using random, please follow bug #316462. this bug is about a button to configure the screensavers. http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=316462
I just re-read what I wrote in comment #40 (to make sure I wasn't missing something) and it appears I was simply responding to what Miles said. No more. no less..... But considering how GNOME developers seem to get things so wrong, so often (like assuming users are never right). I'm not surprised at your misinterpretation. Have the rest of a splendid day. Scott http://mail.gnome.org/archives/usability/2005-December/msg00021.html
replying to comment #42 1. i am not a GNOME developer, please do not judge GNOME based on my attitude of random guy 2. i was giving information to Miles where to get the answer to his question about random screensavers. i didn't want to add even more noise to this bug, but i couldn't contact you by private mail.
what has happened here? this bug is driving me crazy, and nobody seems to care about it. like post 33 I am starting to consider going to KDE because of this tiny little problem. Nobody ever gave reasons that we are not fixing this as post 40 asked. for that matter, no one even made a tutorial to show how to edit .desktop files.
or just disable gnome screensaver and use xscreensave like gnome used to. consider xfce as well, it's worth dealing withough a couple nice features just for the lower memory usage.
(In reply to comment #44) > what has happened here? this bug is driving me crazy, and nobody seems to care > about it. like post 33 I am starting to consider going to KDE because of this > tiny little problem. Nobody ever gave reasons that we are not fixing this as > post 40 asked. for that matter, no one even made a tutorial to show how to edit > .desktop files. > What's happened you ask? Look at the top right of this page. It was "Resolved" ages ago. Billy John was (is) on a power trip and feels his opinion is more important than the rest of of us. Apparently he does have an ego. People who use just one or three names like that usually are big in the narcissism department. According to William John McCann", computer users (Mac, Windows, UNIX, Solaris, BSD etc etc) have been using "broken" screensavers for the past few decades. But he, in his infinite wisdom figured that out (all by himself). Up till he "fixed it" all screensavers were broken. And apparently most of them still are, save for gnome-screensaver. Pity those poor KDE, Enlightenment, XFCE, Windows and Mac users and their "broken" screensavers. Billy John umm. I mean "William John" knows better! And don't try filing another bug. Billy boy will just mark it as a dupe of this one which of course is "resolved". Man what a power trip. He must be high up in GNOME. Nobody oversees his work. Or maybe he provides some "incentive" (do with that what you like) to people there let him do as he pleases. This is harsh and rude, but honestly I don't like being treated like a child and that's what he's done with most all of us here. This nonsense has been going on for a year and apparently we're helpless to do anything about it. "Configurable screen savers are broken" Give me a break! BTW, you'll note above where you responded it says. "The developer decided not to implement this bug or enhancement. If you believe this decision was made for the wrong reason please contact the bugsquad at irc.gnome.org, channel #bugs." In other woreds "tough s.."
Scott, spitting insults makes it less likely the bug will get fixed, not more. Instead, fork gnome-screensaver, fix the bug, and propose your forked version for inclusion in Gnome to replace gnome-screensaver. If you can't, find someone else to do it. (Yes, this is unfortunate. No, it doesn't happen often. Maintainers are usually wrong in less important ways.)
Matthew and others: There is really no reason to be rude or to encourage forking. In the FAQ, regarding creating or modifying themes, is says: "There is work to be done to make this simpler. Ask how you can help." Not a single person has ever asked how they can help. In the FAQ entry mentioned in comment #10 I added some information about technical issues that need to be addressed (ie. code written) before this can even be possible. There are also cross-desktop compatability issues to be considered. Here are a couple of the issues: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=355488 http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=354811 There have been various misreadings of what I have said about this issue. This probably has something to do with the brevity of some of my replies, due to lack of time, and I'm sorry for that. I'll try to summarize and explain a little better: * My view is still that any screensaver theme that *requires* configuration is inherently broken. The key word here is requires. It means that the defaults should work in a reasonable way that no one should *have* to change them. * I am not denying that some people may want to change the defaults and settings. I am saying that simply adding configurability like xscreensaver has is not a good solution and I've listed some reasons in the FAQ. Please notice that the original reporter asked for the "ability to configure individual screensavers like Xscreensaver". That simply won't work. We need a new way and that is going to take some actual work. * I am saying that this isn't my highest priority and that if it is very important to someone they should help out. Jeez, these comments are pretty disheartening to someone spending years of his own time on... Thank you.
Hi William, Thanks for the helpful information. I will look into helping. Unfortunately, I am not much of a programmer. There is another area of the Gnome desktop that is high up on my list of desired feature changes (icon layout on the desktop). I'll see what I can do.
here's an interesting question: if this new app can't replace xscreensaver in a workable[0] way then what in $dieties name is it doing in a stable release? why go backwards? hold it off in stable releases until it fully works. is that really too much to ask? [0] by workable, I mean the same thigns can be achieved by gui, gconf, or file editing. none of the above allow one to change their screen saver settings and expect them to stick past the next update. THIS is the bug.
Chris: If you are using 2.16 then you can drag and drop .desktop files into the gnome-screensaver-preferences dialog to add or update themes.
The problem with that solution is that there is still no way I can see to set those settings in the .desktop file. I still have the problem I came here with days ago, I simply don't know how to change the settings so that the pictures screensaver uses a different folder. Your solution of "simply dragging and dropping .desktop files" still leaves out creation or configuration of those .desktop files. What Chris was saying still holds true even if you can drag and drop the .desktop files, there still is no way to configure those files in the GUI.
thats exactly what William Jon McCann said; if you want a GUI, write one. Except from some insults I dont see any other help like patches here. Therefore I tend to agree with Jon: if we have only one developer working on this, there are more important things than configuranle screensavers. sadly this is written in plain C - otherwise I cold help out with an interface, but I only write gtkmm or pygtk.
(In reply to comment #47) > Scott, spitting insults makes it less likely the bug will get fixed, not more. As I stated previously, take a look at the upper right corner of this page where it reads: Status: RESOLVED Resolution: WONTFIX > Instead, fork gnome-screensaver, fix the bug, and propose your forked version > for inclusion in Gnome to replace gnome-screensaver. If you can't, find someone > else to do it. I can't so how do you propose I find someone else to do it? >(Yes, this is unfortunate. No, it doesn't happen often. > Maintainers are usually wrong in less important ways.) I'd love to know what kind of QC GNOME has. This is positively nuts.
(In reply to comment #48) > Matthew and others: > > There is really no reason to be rude Nothing else I was saying got your attention. And you ignored my private email. > or to encourage forking. In the FAQ, > regarding creating or modifying themes, is says: > "There is work to be done to make this simpler. Ask how you can help." "There is work to be done"? Did YOU not write gnome-screensaver? Since you broke screensaver functionality for zillions of users, why not fix it, instead of askimg someone else to? > > Not a single person has ever asked how they can help. Even if I knew how, it was you that caused http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=31665 to come to be. And from what I read on another GNOME list archive this is indeed your baby. There's no doubt about it. > > * My view is still that any screensaver theme that *requires* configuration is > inherently broken. The key word here is requires. It means that the defaults > should work in a reasonable way that no one should *have* to change them. The defaults do work in a "reasonable way", but how many users want the defaults? That's why they go in and adjust to their taste. And most of the folks who write them include that feature in the design. Your "fix" broke that feature. I don't have to change them, I WANT to change them. And I'm hardly alone. Again, as I've pointed out, users have come to expect it, long before GNOME ever existed. > > * I am not denying that some people may want to change the defaults and > settings. I am saying that simply adding conductibility like xscreensaver has > is not a good solution and I've listed some reasons in the FAQ. Please notice > that the original reporter asked for the "ability to configure individual > screensavers like Screensaver". That simply won't work. We need a new way > and that is going to take some actual work. Maybe I don't fully understand what everyone means by "configure". All I know is in XScreensaver I can pick a screensaver that I want to use and tweak it via the window in front of me to say....add more colors or shapes etc etc. This is something that people have been doing for YEARS with GNOME, KDE and Windows before that. People expect it. It's almost as if you decided desktop backgrounds were a bad thing and disabled them as well. Users have come to expect this stuff and honestly it doeesn't bode well for GNOME. You'll note someone mentioned moving to KDE because of this. Stuff like this gives GNOME a bad reputation. And considering the overall "dumbing down" GNOME has been going through for the past 18 months, this isn't helping the situation at all. It's just alienating more users. > > * I am saying that this isn't my highest priority and that if it is very > important to someone they should help out. I figured it wasn't which makes a lot of us even *more* frustrated. > > Jeez, these comments are pretty disheartening to someone spending years of his > own time on... > I'm sure they are. But you don't seem to care how we feel. You BROKE screensavers in GNOME, plain and simple. GNOME developers keep hammering away at striving to making GNOME THE user-friendly desktop for X-Window. Now tell me, what's "user friendly" about uninstalling gnome-screensaver and installing x-screensaver? BTW, with all the configuration options you mention that are available to system administrators, why not give them the capability to DISABLE SCREENSAVERS. Let them make the decision. Don't make it for them (or us). They can already easily yank stuff from GNOME they don't want (e.g. Games). On a related note, this business of users like myself yanking pieces out of GNOME that break what wasn't broken is starting to get old. Off to Ubuntu to ask them to remove gnome-screensaver as a dependency of ubuntu-desktop. Give me my God old reliable "X's" (X-Screensaver, X-Chat)..
For me, the problem is that William is saying things like "We need a new way and that is going to take some actual work." as in, "we took out xscreensaver and replaced it with something that still needs lots of work." There is still no way to get the pictures to show anything but 2 ubuntu logos and maybe 3 pictures of outer space, because it simply can't be changed. I can't program, I use ubuntu because I'm too poor to get a mac, and I hate windows. All I know is that one day I decided to update my machine, and suddenly, I couldn't have a screensaver with my favorite family pictures fading past. You complain that you're overworked, and that nobody wants to help, but the truth is, you have broken my screensaver, and won't even tell me a workaround to get the thing working. Do you not see the problem here? I simply can't get what I want, I could before, and it's your fault. sorry to be so whiny, but I don't know what else to do at this point.
David, please note that you can place pictures in the "Picture Folder" screensaver by putting images in ~/Pictures. Also, you can always just uninstall gnome-screensaver and go back to xscreensaver, if you have no problems with it. Unfortunately, there seems to be a real need for more programmers to implement additional gnome-screensaver functionality. I think there has been enough complaint. Now we either need to learn to program and submit patches, go find new programmers who would like to implement these features or be patient.
heh, actually, I already tried using the ~/Pictures folder, didn't work. I'll just try to figure out how to switch back to xscreensaver. but this still needs to be fixed.
(In reply to comment #56) > For me, the problem is that William is saying things like "We need a new way > and that is going to take some actual work." > as in, "we took out xscreensaver and replaced it with something that still > needs lots of work." There is still no way to get the pictures to show anything > but 2 ubuntu logos and maybe 3 pictures of outer space, because it simply can't > be changed. I can't program, I use ubuntu because I'm too poor to get a mac, > and I hate windows. All I know is that one day I decided to update my machine, > and suddenly, I couldn't have a screensaver with my favorite family pictures > fading past. You complain that you're overworked, and that nobody wants to > help, but the truth is, you have broken my screensaver, and won't even tell me > a workaround to get the thing working. Do you not see the problem here? I > simply can't get what I want, I could before, and it's your fault. > sorry to be so whiny, but I don't know what else to do at this point. w00t! You da man! :-) *high-five*
(I know it's not a web forum, i just thought it was useful to write that) to be fair gnome-screensaver also adds a number of features from the previous xscreensaver, so it's not like gnome-screensaver is less good in everything than xscreensaver. it's true that configuring screensavers is a central feature. I think that short term, changing the tag of this bug away from WONTFIX (if needed reformulate the description of the bug to match what the authors want to implement long-term) will ease the critics on this topic, since it appears that authors actually want to implement this feature (long term).
This bug is a shame to the GNOME community! I surely hope that gnome-screensaver will be replaced in Ubunty Edgy... That said, here is how to change the folder to show your own pictures. Obviously this only works if only one user uses the system or all the users have their pictures in the same folder: Press Alt+F2 and in the command box type: gksu gedit /usr/share/gnome-screensaver/themes/personal-slideshow.desktop Press Enter and a type in your Admin password. In the text editor search for the line beginning with "Exec=" and change the text behind the "--location=" (the infamous 'Pictures' folder) to the folder where you have your pictures (ofcourse not including the path to your Home-dir) Good luck and thanks for nothing William!
I understand people highly care about this bug. But please, no insults/rants/trolling/etc anymore (yes, this is a warning). Normal (constructive) comments are of course welcome. See http://live.gnome.org/CodeOfConduct If you want to discuss this comment, mail bugmaster@gnome.org.
If you're running the xscreensaver screensavers, you should have xscreensaver-demo around, which edits your xscreensaver preferences. Why not just let users configure their xscreensaver stuff with xscreensaver-demo? If you're loading an xscreensaver screensaver that has preferences in ~/.xscreensaver, grab the options from that file. This might seem to be a relatively easy compromise. On that note, the design of xscreensaver-demo's per-screensaver-options dialog seems to me quite user friendly, and might be something to consider if a comprehensive solution to detailed xscreensaver preferences is eventually tackled.
> I simply don't know how to change the settings so that the pictures screensaver uses a different folder. This works for most of the screensavers using pictures: Just make a ~/.xscreensaver file with something like this: imageDirectory: /home/me/my_pictures
With all due respect, I submit that the stated goal of preventing users from displaying offensive text and images by making the screensaver nearly totally nonconfigurable by individual users will be as successful as the War on Drugs. The "hardtalk" font by Apostrophic Labs has characters that consist of risque graffiti. Does pessulus or sabayon let the sysadmin prevent the user from putting fonts in ~/.fonts? Does pessulus or sabayon let the sysadmin prevent the user from changing the wallpaper? Even with gnome-screensaver, one can turn off the screensaver and leave a window up showing an OpenOffice document reading "The CEO is a bastard" in 144 point Bitstream Sans Vera, or Firefox with a pr0n image on display. IMHO, the attempt to enforce political correctness by preventing individual users from choosing how many cows bounce is pointless and has only served to generate a large number of extremely angry users.
> Does pessulus or sabayon let the sysadmin prevent the user from putting fonts in ~/.fonts? Does anyone prevent the user from putting his favorite pr0n folder in ~/.xscreensaver ? No :) To save myself from only answering to a rant, I'll add a contructive comment: You can get a GUI (implemented as a Gnome script) for choosing gnome-screensaver images folder here: http://www.zisman.ca/ubuntu/index.html#Tormod
I would suggest putting a new feature of allowing the user to create derivative screensavers. The way this would work is that the user selects the lattice screensaver (an example from the rss-glx set) and clicks the customize button. Then a window pops up that allows the user to change all of the settings. The user will change some settings, specify a name and click save. It will then save as a sub-list under the lattice screensaver. Like this: Lattice <- this is the original screensaver with default settings. --Donut <- this is a customization --Computer themed <- also customized --etc This would probably save as a desktop file under ~/.gnome2/gnomescreensaver/somethingorother. This would require a remove button for old customizations, and possibly an export button that would save the desktop file to wherever the user wanted it. Done right this could be a very easy to use, yet powerful way to customize screensavers. I wanted to say something about the whole feature removal thing. I believe that the gnome project is doing incredible things in making the desktop easier for the average person. However I think that the average person is a little smarter than gnome is giving them credit for. I used to have KDE installed on the family computer. My 5 year old sister figured out and played with for hours the background and screensaver settings. I don't know if gnome is aiming for the lowest common denominator or an average, but if it is an average then I think it is being set too low. Also I believe that the power should be there even if I have to use gconf editor or a terminal to get to it.
This bug needs to be re-opened, and when I get home tonight, I'm going to try to get that done. Telling people to write the code to do it, and then marking it as "wont-fix", is a little contradictory. Also http://live.gnome.org/10x10 pointed out that the user's ability to configure screen savers was one of the most important features, and could help boost Gnome to 10% of the market share by 2010. To mark this as wont fix is simply erroneous. Please re-opent this bug, and maybe we can gnome bounty it or something?
I wholey agree with Adam. I would rather this remain open and the original author to say "yeah, something should be done but I just no longer have the time, sorry."
I don't want to reopen some war, but I think something has to be done about this I am an experienced programmer, but totally new to gnome, and this discussion left me totally puzzled. First of all, I want to configure my screensavers, and I loved when I had lots of screensavers with lots of options, but suddenly some distro thought this was an upgrade, and I suddenly lost all my screensavers. Of course William has no obligation to do the coding, I appreciate the effort to have a screensaver which is consistent with the rest of gnome, but he's contradicting himself: First he says that people should do the coding to have this, so it means that he thinks it has to be done, but he doesn't want/can't do it and that someone else should do it. That's fine But then, he marks the bug as won't fix (which doesn't mean I won't fix it, it means it shouldn't be fix), disencouraging anyone else to do it. I don't know how the gnome workflow is, but I guess he is responsible for accepting patches for this program. So why should someone else take the time to fix it if the patch will likely be rejected because it won't be fixed. At least accept that someone will fork. It has happened before. Let the users choose. Any thoughts?
Well, I would certainly still like to see a patch accepted that would enable me to easily choose advance options for the xscreensaver hacks. Personally, the ones I care about are: 1. Configuring the directory for GLSlideShow (and the other hacks that operate on the picture set, like Distort, Mirrorblob and Gleidescope). 2. Setting the 4D HyperTorus to transparent & solid. 3. It seems that the Substrate screensaver has disappeared, at least from Ubuntu 7.04 development. I rather liked being able to select non-standard options for that hacks (# of seeds, size of curves, etc). Lastly, I still would like to be able to toggle screensavers on/off for the random screensaver display selection, as well as the rate at which to switch between screensavers in random selection. That's it for me. If someone came up with patches for these, would they be accepted into the Gnome development tree? Who makes these decisions, anyway? Miles
I consider the GNOME screensaver to be BROKEN if it CANNOT be configured. Until the GNOME screensaver is FIXED I will not run it. Be real! You need to allow a client to enter the text for the GLText screensaver as apposed to the output of uname -r, to say your business name. However, the one thing that happened from all of this was to turn me on to KDE, which has a bit to many configuration options, but is a cool environ none-the-less. One has to wonder if this was the original intent.
samward1965: Your comments are not constructive (most of them could have been phrased constructively, but you didn't). Please note that in addition to the standard rules of good behavior in bugzilla, this bug in particular also has a special warning in the "Bugzilla Tip" shown on this bug above the comments box. However, since your rant/trolling is not severe, I'll let it slide with a warning. Please do not repeat.
I found the workaround I needed which I'm not entirely happy with, but at least it works. The comment by "Gozer" on this page worked for me: http://philcrissman.com/2006/07/25/howto-add-your-xscreensavers-to-gnome-screensaver/ Basically, here's how to get 3 cows, for example: cp /usr/share/applications/screensavers/xscreensaver-bouncingcow.desktop ~/.local/share/applications/screensavers/xscreensaver-bouncingcow.desktop Now change this file. Here is mine: [Desktop Entry] Encoding=UTF-8 Name=BouncingCow Comment=A Cow. A Trampoline. Together, they fight crime. Written by Jamie Zawinski; 2003. TryExec=bouncingcow Exec=bouncingcow -root -count 3 StartupNotify=false Type=Application Categories=Screensaver However, having to do this in order to get simple customizations in the simple GNOME desktop seems a bit contradictory. Why in the world hasn't this bug been reopened? It's still not fixed (unless you feel the workaround I've posted here is a fix, which would be very sad).
IMHO rants and insults are _precisely_ what is needed in order to attract attention. gnome-screensaver is fundamentally broken, and has been for almost _two_ years. GNOME is now broken, because it includes a piece of broken software. Asking people to be nice has simply resulted in the bug being ignored. The bug should be re-opened, and should stay that way until one is able to configure one's screensavers again. Really, gnome-screensaver should be removed from GNOME until it's usable. Unusable software should not be included in GNOME. As to how configurability should work, why not just provide a configuration window displayed by clicking on a 'Configure' button next to 'Preview' (in the future, it might be nice to have the options auto-display beneath the 'Lock screen when...' button)? Heck, one could probably steal the code from xscreensaver-demo to do this. Until gnome-screensaver is functional, it should be replaced with a screensaver which is. I've read all the Code of Conduct; 'a community where people feel uncomfortable is not a productive one,' but a community where people feel comfortable has obviously not been productive either; I find it difficult to assume people mean well when they ship obviously broken software and deny that there is even a problem (by marking the bug WONTFIX). I'd work on some code to do what I'm suggesting, but I believe it would be rejected. I have no confidence that the maintainer of gnome-screensaver cares, as indicated by the status of this (unresolved, fixable) bug.
(in reply to comment 75) > that there is even a problem (by marking the bug WONTFIX) again: WONTFIX only means that the *maintainer* will not write code to change this. it neither means that the current behaviour is perfect, nor does it mean that contributed patches would be rejected. i think that comment 48 pretty much explains the current situation.
(In reply to comment #75) > IMHO rants and insults are _precisely_ what is needed in order to attract > attention. of bugmasters like me who will make your comment invisible and disable the account. Comment 48 states that patches are welcome. However, do not implement exactly the same thing as xscreensaver.
I would just like to add my two cents to this screensaver configuration thing... In my opinion, this configurationless screensaver idea is perfect! It fits Gnome's "Just work" idea perfectly. (The screensaver system itself could use some configuration options, though, such as better configuring the Random screensaver option without going into the gconf editor). The only problem with this is the screensavers themselves. These screensavers, for the most part, do not fit the Gnome way. They are built to need configuration, because their defaults tend to be arbitrary and boring. Gnome's screensavers should use colours from the current theme, they should pay attention to the user's desktop background and his icon set. Every time a setting from elsewhere could be used and gathered via consistent and standardized means, it should be used. Screensavers are fun and they are nice ways to personalize one's desktop, but they should not be so obtrusive that they require bigger customization windows (and take up more space in gconf) than any program with actual usefulness. In my opinion, every piece of data that a user creates or stores is personalized, so it should not be difficult for a passive thing such as a screensaver to reflect that. (If there was a way to mark sharable / private data, it would be very cool, since then a screensaver could safely pop up random things from the user's home directory, or from a shared data folder, achieving some really exciting personalization). To achieve this, I think the existing screensavers should for the most part be removed, and Gnome's default screensavers should be started fresh, with a clean slate devoid of all the past screen saver cliches. (Yes, even the floating text and the flying toasters). Screensavers have been the same beasts forever: Arbitrary, complicated and way too obtrusive. With that in mind, I think we could do with some real innovation here! These are just little decorations that appear when the system is idle. They should not need so much fussing. Unfortunately, fussing over screensaver settings has become the norm, which is why this bug exists at all. Gnome's screensavers, just like everything else on this desktop, should be beautiful, elegant things that Just Work, just how you want them, right out of the box.
The idea of having screensaver themes is actually a very good one. It makes a lot of sense in a lot of ways, are outlined both in this thread and in the FAQ. However, there is currently no viable tool for configuring such themes other than breaking out a text editor and opening arcane configuration files buried somewhere. Only if and until a more user-friendly configuration tool is available should the "Preferences" button be removed from Gnome-screensaver. If this change that has been made (which the developers say they won't fix) is making users' lives more difficult, isn't it accomplishing the exact reverse of the intended goal? Philosophically, I understand the goal of minimizing the number of configuration options so as to avoid confusing users, but when you have large numbers of people complaining about the LACK of options, it should be pretty clear that you've gone too far. I think we can all agree that the *best* solution would be for someone to whip up a decent theme editor, which should please all parties involved. However, as it seems no one is yet willing to put in the time to do this, perhaps a temporary workaround should be implemented--in the form of the old preferences button. You speak of standards for default screensaver settings--that they work. However, many of the screensavers still don't have working defaults. While enforcing good defaults is a laudable goal, it seems that the removal of configuration options hasn't actually helped much in this area. Furthermore, allowing configuration does not prevent you or anyone else from going through the screensavers and setting sensible default options. To summarize, is there any particular reason the preferences dialog shouldn't be reinstated (which should require a minimum of code-writing, as it used to exist in a previous version) until a decent theme editor is released? And finally, if the Mr. McCann and the other GNOME developers are unwilling to put the effort into making this minor change, is there anyone else out there willing to write a patch against the official source code to add the preferences dialog back into Gnome-screensaver?
gnome-screensaver never had a preferences button. xscreensaver (a competing and older project) had one, but honestly, time spent on a theme editor would be better time spent than time spent trying to reimplement the feature that's in xscreensaver.
This is most certainly false, as I and other users remember using it in the past. It may have been before you ever used the software, but please don't let that fact lead you to false conclusions. If you read the rest of the thread, you will see the developer's rationale for the removal of the button.
Hi, You're probably remembering the xscreensaver ui. xscreensaver used to be the default for many distros.
Not at all; I distinctly remember using both products. What happened was gnome-screensaver was rewritten at some point, and the settings dialog was not implemented.
That is just not true. Go look at the initial gnome-screensaver-preferences.glade file (revision 17). There aren't prefs for individual screensavers there. Anyway, I asked for constructive comments and this whole yes/no discussion is not one of those.
I must have misremembered somehow then. Anyway, point taken. Someone in this thread: https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gnome-screensaver/+bug/22007 wrote some code that claims to have implemented configuration. I haven't tested it, and it may not even be written in the right language, but it's possible that it might be adapted with a bit of work.
Unfortunately, that code is (as described in the bug report) "a full substitution for the gnome-screensaver-preferences application". Written in RealBasic. Then rewritten in C#, with Mono. (Making it unsuitable for Mono-less Ubuntu derivatives such as Xubuntu and Edubuntu.) Which is, to be clear, *not* what I meant when I suggested that people "fork gnome-screensaver". :-)
I need to follow the progress of this bug, so adding myself to the CC list.
I understand the thoughts of the author, but the ones who don't care so much about philosophy can do the following. For the slideshow screensaver, there's a little workaround: put symbolic links in your default picture directory. Also, you can modify the .desktop files in order to pass parameters to the screensaver. E.g. edit /usr/share/applications/screensavers/personal-slideshow.desktop at the line Exec=slideshow add a parameter: Exec=slideshow --location=/your/fav/pic/dir It's dirty, you need super user rights, and you modify it for each user but it works. Well you could call a personalised script in order to call different parameters for each user.
Hi, I recently installed ubuntu (gnome) on my mother's computer. Before, she had kubuntu (kde). She was a bit disappointed when she didn't manage to have a slideshow of her photos. There is a screensaver named GLSlideshow, but no way to configure it. When she launched it, it was a "heron" (ubuntu hardy heron). No way to choose the directory. I asked on a forum, and I learned that she had to modify a text file with a text editor ! My mother !? I installed gnome because I expected it to be user-friendly! Not providing a way to settings screensavers doesn't make any sense. Some screensavers have to be configured. For example, GLText: http://images.imagup.com/04/1217635620_screensaver.png Do you think it is useful if you can't edit the text? I think that "rom-laptop - Linux 2.6.24-20-generic" won't be very attractive. And for 3D screensavers, it's a good thing to specify the number of elements, to avoid it to lag. When I saw that problem, I said "no, it's impossible, there is obviously a way to setting screensavers, the developers can't forget that, in gnome in 2008!". And I found that it was the case, and morover, that "The developer decided not to implement this bug or enhancement.". Very disappointed by the refusal of gnome developers to add an obvious lack in user-friendly interface. I hope it will change.
Well, I think I shall use XScreenSaver until gnome-screensaver is fixed. I will try and look into whether I can contribute anything here, but my C programming isn't brilliant. (I much prefer python. In any case though I fear that the suggested method of sub-entries to each theme engine will require the use of the dreaded TreeView... ack!) In the meantime, it may be conducive to the resolution of the bug if it were marked something other than "WONTFIX." The following page: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/page.cgi?id=bug-status.html#resolution Says that WONTFIX means the bug will not be fixed - full stop, no mention of the maintainer is made. I would suggest this bug be re-opened as NEW to encourage work on it. It is clearly not a low-priority issue if it has garnered such a level of attention, is sending people to replace the piece of software and in some cases, the entire desktop. I think it is clear that the screensaver software would not be a determining factor for many in choice of DE, but as we have seen, it can cause people to jump ship nonetheless. One query I did have, though, is how the maintainer's stated goal of locking down the screensaver settings in corporate settings will be achieved if one can always add a new theme of one's own? This applies whether or not there is a gui tool to facilitate such an addition.
Please, dev guys and ladies, reconsider this once more. Let's take a look on the reasoning in the faq: It states: "... This may even create a market for new or enhanced themes. I can imagine that such demand will quickly be satisfied by the many third party theme sites such as art.gnome.org. ..." Everybody can see easily that this has not became true. Many people are trying to find a workaround in order to be able to change the settings of their screensavers and the decision not to implement this ability in gnome-screensaver complicates their lifes. Next quote: "... TIf they didn't want someone to put "The CEO is a bastard" in rotating, 3D text on a publicly available computer the only option was to remove it form the system. You get the idea. ..." This sounds silly. Don't you think? Censorship for everybody is not my dream. If one can choose a wallpaper ("MY BOSS IS STUPID" written in capitals) and can't freely choose a screensaver, it is even not consistent. Child wanting to see some pornography probably won't use screensaver for this purpose IMHO (anybody heard of that? Maybe I am wrong) etc. Maybe the problem is not so simple, but I think that we should work on a solution and just state that banning users from customizing behavior of their desktop is the best thing whatsoever. People on the forums that talk about gnome-screensaver at least don't seem to think so.. Linux screensavers are incomparable to Windows ones. Unleashing their full potential in GNOME would be cool. Regards, Matej
"Child wanting to see some pornography probably won't use screensaver for this purpose IMHO (anybody heard of that? Maybe I am wrong)" they could just choose webcollage and wait a while, it'll provide the pron. So for that argument, someone needs to enable it's safe search option by default (which should probably be a bug report of its own) if it hasn't been laready
I too agree it's pretty lame that the configuration options were deliberately removed and the author doesn't seem to want to fix this bug. Clearly it's not so difficult to add the feature back in as this brilliant fella did: http://software.xfx.net/utilities/sss/index.htm " You are probably aware that recent versions of Gnome have removed the ScreenSaver Preferences dialog which used to let you configure your screensavers' options. This is by design and it is not a bug, although it has been reported as one by many users. I personally feel it was a bad decision and since I always liked screensavers I decided to code a small utility that will let you configure your screensavers' settings. Although is is being specifically designed for Ubuntu 7.10 (Gutsy Gibbon), I have successfully used it under Ubuntu 6.10 (Edgy Eft) and openSUSE 10.3 The current version of this little applet supports the following features: So, xFX Screensaver Settings is a complete replacement for the gnome-screensaver application providing all the features from the Gnome version plus: * Automatic detection of all available screensavers * Automatic detection of the screensavers' default settings (when possible) * When executed with administrative privileges (gksudo) it can write the changes so that the next time the screensavers are launched utilize the user-define parameters * Live preview of the selected screensaver (including a fullscreen mode) * Automatic refresh of the screensaver preview whenever a setting is changed * Ability to select which screensavers should be used in Random mode "
*** Bug 562888 has been marked as a duplicate of this bug. ***
I agree with many other users that the removal of configuration options for gnome-screensaver is problematic. I have read the FAQ and find that the argument given - that users would be able to 'hack' the system to write "The CEO is a bastard" on the screen - could be easily overcome. Can there not be a button added that says "Unlock screensaver settings", at which point the administrative password would have to be entered? While I feel that even this level of security is unnecessary for my needs, perhaps it would be enough to meet the needs of those who are afraid of the settings being exploited. I agree with the other commenters in that it seems rather strange to mark it as "wontfix" when there are so many users encountering a problem with this. What can we do to help bridge this gap?
you can use http://xfx.net/utilities/sss/download.htm to add a properties button to the gnome-screensaver as seen here http://xfx.net/utilities/sss/images/sss_ss.gif
(In reply to comment #98) > I agree with many other users that the removal of configuration options for > gnome-screensaver is problematic. > > I have read the FAQ and find that the argument given - that users would be able > to 'hack' the system to write "The CEO is a bastard" on the screen - could be > easily overcome. Can there not be a button added that says "Unlock screensaver > settings", at which point the administrative password would have to be entered? > While I feel that even this level of security is unnecessary for my needs, > perhaps it would be enough to meet the needs of those who are afraid of the > settings being exploited. > > I agree with the other commenters in that it seems rather strange to mark it as > "wontfix" when there are so many users encountering a problem with this. What > can we do to help bridge this gap? The app in comment 98 does not work in Lucid 10.04. It seems to me that gnome-screensaver is dead in the water, and the original maintainer (on whose control issues I won't editorialize) will no longer write or support the software. If that is the case, assign the applet to another, more available and less of a settings despot than the original maintainer. Thank you.
Perhaps it's a developer bug and not a software bug?
(In reply to comment #102) That was not a polite comment, I apologise for it.