no ability to configure the different screensavers

[Reinhard Tartler]

There is currently no possibility to configure/modify existing screensaver themes. This is considered a serious regression by several users used to xscreensavers.

Rationale and more explanation is given here: http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver/FrequentlyAskedQuestions

There should be a way/tool/something which allows the configure/modify/create new themes nevertheless

[Scott Robinson (scott-ubuntu)]

I agree with this!

[Dana Olson (adolson)]

Even Windows users can configure a screensaver... Come on.

[Carey Schug (sqrfolkdnc)]

I know in the windows world that system administrators are usually control freaks that micromanage what users can do. But the FREE in free software means that far more Linux users expect freedom. It is not logical that in windows world the default is freedom and system changes must be made to add controls, but that in a Linux world the default is control, and one must go find feedom with no help. At least make it easy to return to the old xscreensaver or gnome one that is equivalent.

Please do not make Linux emulate the worst of windows.

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

* Carey Schug wrote, On 03/11/06 03:49:
> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>
> I know in the windows world that system administrators are usually
> control freaks that micromanage what users can do. But the FREE in free
> software means that far more Linux users expect freedom. It is not
> logical that in windows world the default is freedom and system changes
> must be made to add controls, but that in a Linux world the default is
> control, and one must go find feedom with no help. At least make it
> easy to return to the old xscreensaver or gnome one that is equivalent.
>
> Please do not make Linux emulate the worst of windows.
>
>
Or to be more clear; as the administrator of my family PC,
I have not locked down access to screen saver settings,
and yet, my family cannot configure their screen-save settings.

Windows policy editor does allows the admin to select which settings are
locked down.

Sam

[Carey Schug (sqrfolkdnc)]

Which windows was that? on my win-xp I could configure screen saver
settings from my unprivileged account by default. I didn't even know it
could be restricted without adding external software packages, as I know
was required in earlier windows versions. I think you must have
selected something in windows to restrict the screen savers. Now, true,
unprivileged users cannot install NEW screen savers, but that is not
what was being discussed, the problem report is only about changing
options on screen savers that come on the ubuntu install CD.

Anyway, I don't care what the default is, I just want it to be EASY to
allow freedom to change settings.

If the default is no change allowed, but I can go in as root and check a
box somewhere that allows changing settings, I would be happy.

I have done the "work around" and it is messy. You have to edit config
files by hand to disable the gnome screen saver, then install
xscreensaver, and even then you LOSE functionality (password locking of
screen and/or hibernate, which I don't have to have so I do do without).

Even if configuring was restricted to root that would be acceptable to
me. But the only configuring that can be done on a default ubuntu
system is by manually editing the individual screen saver config files.
And, i presume, kill and restart the daemon, since there was no change
when I didn't do that. Anything that requires vi or even gedit is *NOT*
easy, and even gedit didn't work for me except by the special first
userid (which I put aside and don't use as I think it has special
privileges like root) unless something is done to manually configure the
display. When I attempted to do that, I used vi.

Also, one final nit, the gnome screen saver doesn't have most of the
favorite themes that I liked in xscreensaver, and, in general, has more
the feel of a windows screen saver to me, and i want to be as different
as possible.

If Ubuntu wants to change the default for screen savers that grab photos
to NOT grab them from the web, to avoid a risk of porn, I would support
that. That was an unlikely, but reasonable concern about locking down
screen saver configuring (NOT including installing new ones). And I
never said there weren't control freaks in Linux, just that in Windows
there were FAR MORE.

Sam Liddicott wrote:
> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>
> * Carey Schug wrote, On 03/11/06 03:49:
>
>> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>>
>> I know in the windows world that system administrators are usually
>> control freaks that micromanage what users can do. But the FREE in free
>> software means that far more Linux users expect freedom. It is not
>> logical that in windows world the default is freedom and system changes
>> must be made to add controls, but that in a Linux world the default is
>> control, and one must go find feedom with no help. At least make it
>> easy to return to the old xscreensaver or gnome one that is equivalent.
>>
>> Please do not make Linux emulate the worst of windows.
>>
>>
>

[Sam Liddicott (sam-liddicott)]

I think you mistook me for a supporter of the foul and ghastly and
unusable and undesirable nothingness that the gnome-screensaver
configurator currently is.

And quite possibly windows doesn't let you lock-down
screen-saver-settings via the policy editor, I haven't used it for - oh
so long - but GENERALLY the policy editor lets you choose which
configuration items should be locked down rather than locking them all
down which is what gnome seems to being doing in the name of ab^H^usability.

Sam

* Carey Schug wrote, On 03/11/06 15:39:
> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>
> Which windows was that? on my win-xp I could configure screen saver
> settings from my unprivileged account by default. I didn't even know it
> could be restricted without adding external software packages, as I know
> was required in earlier windows versions. I think you must have
> selected something in windows to restrict the screen savers. Now, true,
> unprivileged users cannot install NEW screen savers, but that is not
> what was being discussed, the problem report is only about changing
> options on screen savers that come on the ubuntu install CD.
>
> Anyway, I don't care what the default is, I just want it to be EASY to
> allow freedom to change settings.
>
> If the default is no change allowed, but I can go in as root and check a
> box somewhere that allows changing settings, I would be happy.
>
> I have done the "work around" and it is messy. You have to edit config
> files by hand to disable the gnome screen saver, then install
> xscreensaver, and even then you LOSE functionality (password locking of
> screen and/or hibernate, which I don't have to have so I do do without).
>
> Even if configuring was restricted to root that would be acceptable to
> me. But the only configuring that can be done on a default ubuntu
> system is by manually editing the individual screen saver config files.
> And, i presume, kill and restart the daemon, since there was no change
> when I didn't do that. Anything that requires vi or even gedit is *NOT*
> easy, and even gedit didn't work for me except by the special first
> userid (which I put aside and don't use as I think it has special
> privileges like root) unless something is done to manually configure the
> display. When I attempted to do that, I used vi.
>
> Also, one final nit, the gnome screen saver doesn't have most of the
> favorite themes that I liked in xscreensaver, and, in general, has more
> the feel of a windows screen saver to me, and i want to be as different
> as possible.
>
> If Ubuntu wants to change the default for screen savers that grab photos
> to NOT grab them from the web, to avoid a risk of porn, I would support
> that. That was an unlikely, but reasonable concern about locking down
> screen saver configuring (NOT including installing new ones). And I
> never said there weren't control freaks in Linux, just that in Windows
> there were FAR MORE.
>
> Sam Liddicott wrote:
>
>> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>>
>> * Carey Schug wrote, On 03/11/06 03:49:
>>
>>
>>> *** This bug is a duplicate of bug 22007 ***
>>>
>>> I know in the wi...

[IbeeX (ibrkanac)]

I feel that this and some other strange decisions from gnome developers are really forcing me to choose KDE as my default desktop.
This bug should be at least critical or Ubuntu should remove this from gnome.

[Carey Schug (sqrfolkdnc)]

Oops, my apologies to everybody.

(1) With replies to replies, I mistook my quoted comment about "don't
make Linux emulate the worst of windows" as being a comment from Sam,
i.e. a contrary to my post. And I thought Sam had replied to me
privately, and I was replying to him privately.

(2) This is my first experience with the website (and my first
significant experience with Linux). Now I realize Sam posted in the bug
report and it was forwarded to me, but I had thought Sam was opposing my
post. The LAST forum where I checked the box "notify me of changes",
all I got was an email telling me to log on to the site to see the new post.

================================

Choice is good.

Presently, Ubuntu lacks choice.