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 <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > To: Joachim Noreiko <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Cc: [email protected], Scott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > > Subject: Re: [Usability] gnome-screensaver configuration (or lack therof) > > > > On Sat, 2006-09-30 at 22:49 +0100, Joachim Noreiko wrote: > > > --- Elijah Newren <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> 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 _______________________________________________ Usability mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/usability
