Propose your solution
Attachments
Duplicates
Comments
|
keen101
wrote on the 28 Feb 08 at 20:09
|
|
|
|
It would be nice. Currently I have to remove Gnome Screensaver and install Xscreensaver to get screensaver prefrences.
|
|
pt123
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 02:17
|
|
|
|
Please fix this non sense, it gives new users impressions of how limited the OS is.
|
|
|
|
Yes most definitely. Removing commonly desired features is not how you are supposed to make things easy.
|
|
Cybercod
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 03:04
|
|
|
Agreed.
What is the point of having cool screensavers if you can't configure them at all... I mean, heck, there is a slideshow screensaver for pictures... and you can't even customize what pictures are used! LAME!
This should have been fixed 3 versions ago.
|
|
Zyith
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 04:03
|
|
|
I agree. I also currently install xscreensaver over it.
Hiding options from users is stupid. If I want three random screensavers, then I should be able to set this up without having to go through the weird "screensaver themes" thing Gnome expects.
Just give me a checkbox.
|
|
|
|
Just get xscreensaver back!
|
|
gcc
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 11:23
|
|
|
|
Yes! xscreensaver back!!!
|
|
caustic
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 14:21
|
|
|
Cut down on the number of screensavers, too. Just keep the best of the best. I nominate (the names need to be better, t hough):
Circuit
Cosmos
Endgame
Euphoria
Flux
Flurry
F-Spot Photos
GLSlideshow
GLText
Pipes
Plasma
Regular 4D Polytopes
Also, integrate the photo savers to use the same engine with different selections (like the Mac does).
|
|
Zyith
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 18:46
|
|
|
Caustic, the problem is, your best of the best may not be what everyone else wants. In fact, most of the ones I use aren't on your list.
I like goofy screensavers like Phosphor and BSOD.
|
|
1338h4x
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 20:32
|
|
|
|
The more the better, and that's what having options are all about. I hate gnome-screensaver with a passion due to how it lacks options and how the author thinks options are evil and unnecessary.
|
|
|
|
xscreensaver doesn't handle messages from full screen applications such as watching movies that disable it while the movie is playing. The sad thing is this used to work and then gnome *improved it* by changing the protocol ever so slightly thus rendering xscreensaver useless. Some kind person needs to port xscreensaver to follow gnome conventions for suspending the screensaver.
|
|
adelie
wrote on the 29 Feb 08 at 23:32
|
|
|
While I think their reasoning is COMPLETELY ABSURD, and that is all that needs to be said, there are two things that should be realized.
1) Gnome is its own seperate project, like, well, everything. Gnome WILL NOT EVER put this feature in. There is an explaination in their forums that, again, I disagree with. 1338h4x mentions this too.
Sure, easy solution and I am sure EVERYONE (nearly) agrees that x-screensaver is WAY better and as that author states, is everything the gnome-screensaver author is too bull headed to listen to anyone about, which is what makes open source so wonderful, which brings me to item #2: Why not put in xscreensaver by default, and it falls on one of Ubuntu's strengths, even if to a fault.
2) Ubuntu supports a solid and complete system. Linux will comtinue to explode with growth as hardware / driver developers won't feel screwed by the world of possibilities (how man packages are there, even just IN the repository, let alone all that is not). Canonical / Ubuntu has delivered on its promise of 'develop for ubuntu, and your drivers / software will work everywhere in the Linux world. Vendors NEED that type of confidence, and they ARE coming around as a result. So, what does this have to do with using the obvious BAD gnome-screensaver over X-screensaver? Its gnome, and ubuntu's support for gnome being clear and complete. Ubuntu / Canonical can say "We are an X windows based disto with the gnome desktop environment". For better or worse, for he sake of getting companies to support linux, ubuntu CAN'T be "well, its is kinda our own mix of X and xfree86 with parts of gnome but done this other way". Business look at that and say, as they should, "Well, you just get back to us when you got all that mess figured out while we develop for the consistently and reliably M$WXP/V.
|
|
ethana2
wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 07:31
|
|
|
Caustic, that is a bad idea.
Give us choice; we shouldn't have to seek it out.
If gnome won't do this, give us the X screensaver thing instead.
|
|
ethana2
wrote on the 2 Mar 08 at 07:32
|
|
|
|
Also, I use the screensavers as my desktop background, and if I didn't have to use the terminal to do that, it'd be that much cooler.
|
|
|
+1. Bring xscrensaver back.
Granted, Ubuntu Gnome. But Ubuntu could spend a little time making Xscreensaver gnome compatible. And every other distro would love us for it...
|
|
HDave
wrote on the 4 Mar 08 at 02:43
|
|
|
|
Great idea. Way overdue!
|
|
|
ethena2,
Are you saying that you're able to have a live screensaver as your desktop background while you're using your desktop? I could never find info on how to do this - mind sharing?
|
|
muecker
wrote on the 12 Mar 08 at 22:24
|
|
|
|
I would really like the ability to easily disable a screensaver from the GUI. I have had issues with screensavers locking up and not allowing me to get back to my desktop. I would like to be able to turn those screensavers off and leave the others active.
|
|
XerxesXS
wrote on the 18 Mar 08 at 13:23
|
|
|
Whilst I do not use the Gnome-Screensaver (mostly to do with the restrictions on the settings we are allowed; ie, NONE) it would be nice to actually allow users to change the settings. Many of the (nicer) screensavers look awful on large screens, mainly attributable to the fact that the resolution is set at one low value.
To my mind, this is rediculous. I understand Gnome's reasoning, but a large proportion of users are crying out for this to be implemented- especially those coming from windows, this seems especially arcane and un-necessary.
I would have thought that Canonical would want to limit the amount of areas that users can say 'I can do that better in windows'...
|
|
|
|
It's just stupid to remove the settings.
|
|
|
|
I think the maintainer of the gnome-screensaver package is going down the wrong road with this idea. I would like to see the settings for individual screensavers put back. When I use the "phosphor" screensaver, for instance, it would be nice to be able to change where it gets its text from. The screensavers themselves were created to be configurable. It's pretty sad when one simple part of Gnome is making me seriously think about switching to KDE permanently. Removing the settings was a bad idea from the start.
|
|
volvoguy
wrote on the 15 Apr 08 at 12:20
|
|
|
I totally miss being able to configure the screensavers (and didn't know about switching to Xscreensaver). A lot of the 3D screen savers especially need to be tweaked to run optimally on a given system - and often I just plain like other presets better than the ones picked for me. I specifically have the RSS screensavers in mind, but I'd like to be able to tweak any of them.
If everyone wants to stick with the current package, is it really that difficult to add a "configure" button and offer a GUI to the .xscreensaver configuration file?
This may seem like a trivial issue, but it's usually the first thing I go check when a new release comes out... "Is the configure button back yet?!" :-)
|
|
|
@christian.convey look for "xwinwrap". However due to a stupidity of the GNOME desktop it is not currently possible to disable GNOME's control of the desktop background without either patching nautilus or disabling desktop icons (no great loss to my mind, but whatever.)
@volvoguy the configure button will NEVER come to gnome-screensaver (barring a new, more intelligent maintainer taking over the project.)
@Ubuwu there is no need whatsoever for that. We already have "xscreensaver" which is where all the screensavers come from already! (You think those are from GNOME? h0 h0 h0) jwz (xscreensaver's author) says that gnome-screensaver is bad, wrong, and stupid and let's face it, jwz is not known for being full of crap. Here's the citation: http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/faq.html#gnome-screensaver
A REAL SOLUTION: Let's eliminate gnome-screensaver by default, and just install xscreensaver. Free tip: If you remove gnome-screensaver, then the "Screensaver" icon in preferences will run xscreensaver-demo. At least, the change happened automatically on my Hardy system. The simple truth is that having screensaver configuration is not too confusing for users on windows, so there's no reason it should be too complicated for users on Linux either.
|
|
ilektron
wrote on the 16 Jul 08 at 08:35
|
|
|
I would like settings for my screensavers very much. I will never win a 'KDE vs Gnome' argument until this issue has been fixed.
+1
|
|
keen101
wrote on the 31 Jul 08 at 04:36
|
|
|
Yeah i remember Ubuntu 5.10 had xcreensaver by default.
+1 to bring it back as the default.
Sure it has way too many screensavers, but choice is good.
|
|
AleRi8
wrote on the 3 Aug 08 at 11:37
|
|
|
|
+1 for me too the screensavers should have a choice of set screensaver as wallpaper too
|
|
|
|
This has bugged me since 5.10, I want to customize what pictures folder it gets its slideshow from!
|
|
|
|
+1 This is my only criticism about a design decision of gnome - I do not think screen saver settings are even a remote version of an advanced feature.
|
|
|
|
Yeah, let's include Xscreensaver by default!
|
|
|
yeah, the y keep cutting out the good screensavers... the only good one i like is glblur, which kinda sucks.
geez, this should have been fixed eons ago... now in 2010 we have only made it worse.
|
|
dE
wrote on the 13 May 10 at 03:40
|
|
|
But you know, the second idea is not valid cause the devs think -
1) It's not better integrated with the Desktop.
2) It does not follow Gnome release cycles.
Well the users don't give a fuckin damn about the above 2 points...only the devs give a damn.
|
|
Nadim
wrote on the 16 Jun 10 at 05:53
|
|
|
After spending far longer than I should have trying to figure out why all these obviously-in-need-of-configuration screensavers (come on, even ones that display photos from a directory or display text?) STILL can't be configured using Gnome's screensaver, I had to switch back to Xscreensaver, yet again, to make my 3 year old daughter happy (she is convinced that the screensaver is the raison d'etre for the computer's existence.
With every new Ubuntu version, I try this same process again, assuming that surely, after all this time, they would have fixed this obviously broken product. It boggled my mind when I came across their FAQ, in which they reasoned that this is actually the correct behavior. Sure, maybe if they designed all new screensavers from scratch, that weren't designed to need configuration, I might possibly buy that. But to simply repackage all of the Xscreensaver hacks, removing basic functionality and occasionally essentially breaking them? For shame.
Yeah, screen savers are fairly trivial (though try explaining that to my daughter), but still, it's a basic application that as others have pointed out, will stick out very quickly as an embarrassment for Linux compared to even Windows.
So I emphatically second these other voices calling for choosing Xscreensaver as the default. Don't bother considering gnome-screensaver again until their maintainers get the message that taking a good product and crippling it doesn't make it somehow better or "easier to use".
|
|
|
|
XScreensaver is a must in Gnome 3. Gnome screensaver is SO pointless now.
|
Post your comment
|
