On Mon, Mar 3, 2008 at 8:55 PM, Jamie Zawinski <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > I don't understand why you're wasting your time on this. The > xscreensaver executable is only 200kb. > > A good principle is "don't fix what ain't broke". >
Jamie, I like to see it as "progress" :) I understand your feelings on this, but I have another perspective. It's not to save 200kB, but to avoid any conflicts between different backends and setups. I see upstream xscreensaver as a provider of 1) a nice screensaver backend that some people need or prefer to use 2) a wonderful collection of hacks that can be shared by other backends and what not. Of course, we are now making (2) easier and cleaner, but we also try to satisfy (1) better. For instance, people can install the xscreensaver package in their GNOME and it will work in all its glory without any crippling that would have been introduced for (2). It can seem unfair to the xscreensaver heritage, but we now have something like xscreensaver, gnome-screensaver and kscreensaver being equal, independent choices for backend, all three sharing the goodness of xscreensaver-data. Thanks for all your great work, Tormod -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
