RE: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Bastian, Waldo
>On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote: >> Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. > >IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge. > >> There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem, that can/should be >> discussed on the xdg list: >>

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Michael Sweet
Jim Gettys wrote: Wel, the history is like this: XSetScreenSaver and friends are original to the X11 core protocol, and have no support for user space screen savers at all. The screen saver extension "MIT-SCREEN-SAVER" to do so came along a few years later. It might have been nice if it made e

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Michael Sweet
Matthias Hopf wrote: On Feb 14, 06 15:22:24 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote: On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote: Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge. I did put "solution" in quotes, for a re

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Jim Gettys
Wel, the history is like this: XSetScreenSaver and friends are original to the X11 core protocol, and have no support for user space screen savers at all. The screen saver extension "MIT-SCREEN-SAVER" to do so came along a few years later. It might have been nice if it made explicit provision fo

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Matthias Hopf
On Feb 14, 06 15:22:24 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote: > On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote: > > Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. > >IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge. > > I did put "solution" in quotes, for a reason... I g

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Jim Gettys
On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote: > Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. >IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge. I did put "solution" in quotes, for a reason... I guess I'm being too subtle: let's call a spade a shovel th

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Michael R Sweet
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Matthias Hopf wrote: ... I think something related to the X protocol (e.g. *no* DBUS) is much more convenient, because one wants to disable the screen saver on a particular display. Authorization and identification comes for free when done using the X protocol. W

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Matthias Hopf
On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote: > Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge. > There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem, that can/should be > discussed on the xdg list: >o us

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Jim Gettys
Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP. The fundamental issue is a desktop communications issue: knowing that at least one application is currently active that has good reason to believe the screen saver should be suppressed. Examples: video player (at least when full scre

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-14 Thread Matthias Hopf
On Feb 09, 06 13:50:03 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote: > Hi, > Well in regards to the screensaver issue I thought that already where a > solution, but it could be its GNOME specific atm. In GNOME 2.14 Totem > for instance is able to tell gnome-screensaver to not activate using > db

RE: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-09 Thread Bastian, Waldo
gt;[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jim Gettys >Sent: Thursday, February 09, 2006 1:30 PM >To: Jeremy White >Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED] >Subject: Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV > >So the next step is to take this list to the xdg list on freedesktop, >with a proposed s

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-09 Thread Jim Gettys
So the next step is to take this list to the xdg list on freedesktop, with a proposed solution for these problems, and possibly code to implement them, when appropriate. I do note that some of this list is the "nirvana" of unifying desktop configuration stuff, but maybe the way to start is specifi

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-09 Thread Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller
Hi, Well in regards to the screensaver issue I thought that already where a solution, but it could be its GNOME specific atm. In GNOME 2.14 Totem for instance is able to tell gnome-screensaver to not activate using dbus. No idea if any other screensaver package listens to dbus for such messages, bu

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-08 Thread Jeremy White
> Can you expand on the use case for "Interface with e-mail client"? Is > there specific functionality you are looking for beyond "start an e-mail > composer for this mailto: URL" ? I think our needs break down as follows: Please give me a list of people in the email address book Start an emai

Re: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-08 Thread Bryce Harrington
On Wed, Feb 08, 2006 at 01:18:49PM -0800, Bastian, Waldo wrote: > Great feedback. > > Most of this seems to be in line with tasks and prioritization on > http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PortlandIntegrationTasks > > Can you expand on the use case for "Interface with e-mail client"? Is > there spec

RE: [Desktop_architects] The experience of an ISV

2006-02-08 Thread Bastian, Waldo
Great feedback. Most of this seems to be in line with tasks and prioritization on http://www.freedesktop.org/wiki/PortlandIntegrationTasks Can you expand on the use case for "Interface with e-mail client"? Is there specific functionality you are looking for beyond "start an e-mail composer for th