Intresting post from the developer of XScreenSaver
Hi there...
some time ago a patched version of XScreenSaver was added to Slackware 14.1 that disables the "Update now" warning because of an outdated version of XScreenSaver. Debian is doing the same thing and ships a much older version. Now the XScreenSaver-developer posted the following blog post: Link Slackware 14.2 is up-2-date on this specific package, so no issue here, and users of 14.1 should at least do not get the warning. I can understand the developer (this is why i keep the screensaver up-2-date for myself) and i think people should only report bugs matching the current version to the developer. Issues with older versions should go to the maintainer of the distros. What's your opinion about having someday in the future a "patched" version in 14.2? Would Slackware update xscreensaver if the there are no security issues or add disable the update warning? If not the situation would be like for debian and maybe slackware users would report bugs to the developer that maybe have been fixed already on newer versions. I added a poll for this... share your thoughts please! :) |
Quote:
Code:
grep -A3 xscreensaver ChangeLog.txt | head -n5 |
Quote:
|
Quote:
Code:
# Remove a feature that pops up a nag screen claiming the version is old |
Intresting post from the developer of XScreenSaver
I use it since it is the most reliable offre the good looking solutions i've found :-P
|
I finally had a chance to read the blog post (the site was blocked at work). Personally, I don't care what is done with this software since I don't use it. I do see and understand both points of views. However, personally, I think the higher priority would be a distro maintainer ensuring the stability of their distro by not putting newer, untested versions of a program in just because of a software timer. In this case, I think the developer is wrong in trying to force this (but, since it is his software, it is obviously his choice to do so).
I don't know of any other Linux programs that put timers in their software that popup nagging warnings if the software is X number of days old. That is absurd, and could you imagine the backlash if the rest of the software community started doing that? We'd have to dismiss hundreds of prompts with a properly patched Slackware 14.1. Then if you try to run one of the older, but still supported Slackwares? Could you imagine it with 13.0? There's just no way to keep up-to-date with all the packages to ensure they're running semi-recent versions on a distro that is designed to be "stable". And then there's always the issue of a newer version possibly introducing new bugs. I'm sorry, but what makes xscreensaver so special that the dev thinks his software -- over every other piece of software in a distro -- deserves to remain up-to-date? However, I totally agree that before submitting a bug report upstream, the user should attempt to create the issue with the latest version (possibly even based on an even newer snapshot). Unfortunately, not all Linux users are capable enough to compile a program, let alone replacing a system package. But any bugs they find should absolutely be reported to the package maintainer unless the user has verified themselves that it can be replicated on the latest version. And I wonder how many of these "bug reports" are actually reports of the popup and not an actual bug with the program? If he really is this insistent to ask distros to remove his software, I wouldn't be opposed to it and then just throw it on SBo (or maybe a SlackBuild script in extra/). However, that is an easy call for me to make since I don't use it ;) |
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
Quote:
|
The warning pops up when the system date is not set to current iirc, which is a bit annoying on new computer install for example
|
I think both sides are right, the xscreensaver dev is right in that keeping his program up to date is for the best and that the way distros such as debian are handling it is extremely poor.
Pat is also right in that an expiration date is extremely inane, should be removed and still apparently keeps the program up to date. I personally use xscreensaver because I enjoy screensavers, otherwise I'd probably go for something like slock. |
My take... Whatever Patrick feels is best, is best.
|
If he ("jwz") could guarantee 100% that newer versions would not break things, then I would agree with him.
But that is not the case. On my Slackware 14.0: xscreensaver >= 5.30 is broken; xscreensaver <= 5.29 is Ok. So that makes his statements quite arrogant that users should always use the latest version. Code:
"00:02.0 VGA compatible controller: Intel Corporation 82G33/G31 Express Integrated Graphics Controller (rev 10)" Do I care to find out why? Not really. Not yet. I simply use an older version that does work. And one more thing: Code:
/* xscreensaver-command, Copyright (c) 1991-2013 Jamie Zawinski <jwz@jwz.org> So I fail to see what his problem is with Slackware and other distros patching the source code. If he does not like that, then he should update the copyright notice appropriately. |
A interesting and long read on that blog. Some comments were, well amazing. :study:
I don't use screen savers at all anymore, aside from playing around with KDE's screen saver a bit. The On/Off switch works wonders, these days I just let the monitor auto switch off. If I need to lock the screen I manually lock it. I don't sit around watching my monitor anyway. I am playing with XScreenSaver right now (for the first time), cool program. Will go back to my usual modus operandi in when playtime is over. ;) I remember the good old shareware days. Normally a 30 day trial run, then send the author what was requested (money, post card, thanks, etc.) with continued use. One could also just keep using the program and not honor the request. It was totally "on your honor". I always complied if I liked and continued to use the program (I will admit sometimes it was a bit longer than 30 days before the guilt button hit me. :redface:). Sadly because of folks who never complied. Some programs started appearing with nags or restrictions placed on use after a time limit. Then programs began to appear with limitations right from the start, only way to get full function was to comply. In some cases this prevented fully testing out the software to see if it met your expectations, requirements. It's really annoying to have paid and then be disappointed. So what does this have to do with XScreenSaver? Nothing aside from the fact XScreenSaver now has a nag. So in effect it is now nagware. Hope it goes no further than that. I think it should just go away (the nag). While I can understand the frustration of the author, that does not excuse adding a nag to update after a specified time. I am sure that are plenty of other authors dealing with similar issues. The author at times seems to put the blame on the user. It's not. The normal user simply installs the distribution and expects it to work and relies on the maintainer(s) to keep it updated. The user should never see a nag window to update from a specific program, this is not Windows. The simple fact is, the normal user would be thinking "What do you mean this program is very old? I just updated." As a Slackware user, I abide with what our BDFL decides. If XScreenSaver was not part of Slackware, well it wouldn't be installed since I do not use screen savers. If I did use screen savers and used XScreenSaver I would seriously consider "removepkg" but if I really liked it a lot, I'd probably patch it and of course keep it up to date, like I do all of my "non-slack" packages I have installed. :) My vote was "I don't use XScreenSaver, i don't care...", guess I must care a little though since I took the time to post. :twocents: |
Quote:
I get that the developer would like to limit bug reports for old versions, but if all developers used nag screens to encourage users to update, it would be a nightmare. So I ask again, why is xscreensaver so important that it needs to be kept up-to-date over something more important? The obvious answer is that it isn't any *more* important than other software out there. The developer could've easily created a bug report form that asked for the version, and if the user inputted an older version, a "popup" could come up informing the user they are not on the latest version and to either contact the package maintainer or build the latest from source and try to reproduce the problem. How many times have we seen what would thought to have been an innocent update only to have it wreak havoc on our system. The most recent that springs to mine was polkit. Throwing in new, untested software into an already stable release is just asking for problems. As MadMaverick9 showed, a simple upgrade isn't always simple. Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
|
Quote:
Quote:
But as has always been the case, my opinions are only mine, and it is up to Pat on what to do. |
All times are GMT -5. The time now is 10:25 PM. |