LinuxQuestions.org
Help answer threads with 0 replies.
Go Back   LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware
User Name
Password
Slackware This Forum is for the discussion of Slackware Linux.

Notices


View Poll Results: How should Slackware handle updates to XScreenSaver?
Respect the wish of the developer and keep XScreenSaver up-2-date 21 36.84%
Only update XScreenSaver if security issues have been fixed and keep the update warning disabled 15 26.32%
I don't use XScreenSaver, i don't care... 21 36.84%
Voters: 57. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
  Search this Thread
Old 04-07-2016, 11:28 AM   #1
DarkVision
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 199

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Question 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ago a patched version of XScreenSaver was added to Slackware 14.1 that disables the "Update now" warning because of an outdated version of XScreenSaver.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!

Last edited by DarkVision; 04-07-2016 at 11:36 AM. Reason: Poll added
 
Old 04-07-2016, 12:12 PM   #2
drmozes
Slackware Contributor
 
Registered: Apr 2008
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 1,531

Rep: Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274Reputation: 1274
Quote:
Originally Posted by DarkVision View Post
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ago a patched version of XScreenSaver was added to Slackware 14.1 that disables the "Update now" warning because of an outdated version of XScreenSaver.
...
[snip]
and users of 14.1 should at least do not get the warning.
Check the change logs:
Code:
grep -A3 xscreensaver ChangeLog.txt | head -n5
patches/packages/xscreensaver-5.34-i486-1_slack14.1.txz:  Upgraded.
  I promised jwz that I'd keep this updated in -stable when I removed (against
  his wishes) the nag screen that complains if a year has passed since that
  version was released.  So, here's the latest one.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-07-2016, 12:29 PM   #3
DarkVision
Member
 
Registered: Jul 2007
Posts: 199

Original Poster
Rep: Reputation: Disabled
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmozes View Post
Check the change logs:
Code:
grep -A3 xscreensaver ChangeLog.txt | head -n5
patches/packages/xscreensaver-5.34-i486-1_slack14.1.txz:  Upgraded.
  I promised jwz that I'd keep this updated in -stable when I removed (against
  his wishes) the nag screen that complains if a year has passed since that
  version was released.  So, here's the latest one.
Thx, must have missed that. Anyway... for now it looks like people agree to the decision of Pat or do not even use XScreenSaver... (of course 10 votes are noth that much )

Last edited by DarkVision; 04-07-2016 at 12:31 PM.
 
Old 04-07-2016, 01:36 PM   #4
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,792

Rep: Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656
Quote:
Originally Posted by drmozes View Post
Check the change logs:
Code:
grep -A3 xscreensaver ChangeLog.txt | head -n5
patches/packages/xscreensaver-5.34-i486-1_slack14.1.txz:  Upgraded.
  I promised jwz that I'd keep this updated in -stable when I removed (against
  his wishes) the nag screen that complains if a year has passed since that
  version was released.  So, here's the latest one.
However, in the xscreensaver.SlackBuild in the patches/ directory of 14.1, this tidbit was added, so it looks like Pat is prepared in case he doesn't push any more updates of xscreensaver.

Code:
# Remove a feature that pops up a nag screen claiming the version is old
# after one year.  Just don't send in bug reports on an old version, OK folks?
# I hate to swim against upstream, but with all respect this feature is not
# helpful to distributions.
zcat $CWD/xscreensaver.no.expiration.date.diff.gz | patch -p1 --verbose --backup --suffix=.orig || exit 1
 
Old 04-07-2016, 02:08 PM   #5
Tonus
Senior Member
 
Registered: Jan 2007
Location: Paris, France
Distribution: Slackware-15.0
Posts: 1,397
Blog Entries: 3

Rep: Reputation: 511Reputation: 511Reputation: 511Reputation: 511Reputation: 511Reputation: 511
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
 
Old 04-07-2016, 04:14 PM   #6
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,792

Rep: Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656
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
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-07-2016, 06:08 PM   #7
1337_powerslacker
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-15.0
Posts: 862
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassmadrigal View Post
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 find the issue of XScreensaver to be of personal interest, since I *do* use it, and before Pat patched it, I did find the nag screen annoying. However, having read the author's explanation, I can see his point. The users sending him bug reports on ancient versions of his software do so because their distro's maintainers do not actively encourage source compilation of packages, and are not especially inclined to upgrade their software on a regular basis (i.e., whenever an update to a package comes out). Therefore, when the software has a bug (or is perceived to have a bug by the user), the fact that the distro's maintainers might be at fault for not updating their software never enters the user's mind. He/she is more inclined to complain upstream than laterally. This nag screen is literally the only way he sees of fighting back; I see this as an isolated incident, not likely to be repeated by any other upstream package maintainers.

Quote:
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?
If you were the one getting the wrongfully directed bug reports (you instead of the distro maintainers), you might rethink your position. As the old saying goes, "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."

Quote:
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.
Truth. Most Linux users are more used to letting others compile their software; that is the "Windows Way", if I may coin a term. Active software patching/compiling/upgrading is a geek endeavor, and not a lot of Linux users are so inclined.

Quote:
And I wonder how many of these "bug reports" are actually reports of the popup and not an actual bug with the program?
Probably all of them, at a guess. My instance of XScreensaver runs without complaints of any kind.

Quote:
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
I think Pat is best qualified to make that call. Since I trust his judgment on these kinds of issues, I am of no mind to distrust him now.
 
Old 04-07-2016, 07:06 PM   #8
keefaz
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Mar 2004
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 6,552

Rep: Reputation: 872Reputation: 872Reputation: 872Reputation: 872Reputation: 872Reputation: 872Reputation: 872
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
 
Old 04-08-2016, 12:24 AM   #9
orbea
Senior Member
 
Registered: Feb 2015
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 1,950

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 03:16 AM   #10
ReaperX7
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Jul 2011
Location: California
Distribution: Slackware64-15.0 Multilib
Posts: 6,554
Blog Entries: 15

Rep: Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097Reputation: 2097
My take... Whatever Patrick feels is best, is best.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 06:09 AM   #11
MadMaverick9
Member
 
Registered: Aug 2010
Posts: 353
Blog Entries: 4

Rep: Reputation: Disabled
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)"
Broken as in: when it is woken up, the screen is black with only the mouse pointer showing. I can enter my password though, and it does unlock. But the display stays black with the mouse pointer showing only. It only happens sporadically.

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>
 *
 * Permission to use, copy, modify, distribute, and sell this software and its
 * documentation for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided that
 * the above copyright notice appear in all copies and that both that
 * copyright notice and this permission notice appear in supporting
 * documentation.  No representations are made about the suitability of this
 * software for any purpose.  It is provided "as is" without express or 
 * implied warranty.
 */
He clearly states that he grants permission to modify the source code as long the copyright notice appears as is.

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.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 09:12 AM   #12
chrisretusn
Senior Member
 
Registered: Dec 2005
Location: Philippines
Distribution: Slackware64-current
Posts: 2,949

Rep: Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531Reputation: 1531
A interesting and long read on that blog. Some comments were, well amazing.

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. ). 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.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-08-2016, 10:07 AM   #13
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,792

Rep: Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_powerslacker View Post
I find the issue of XScreensaver to be of personal interest, since I *do* use it, and before Pat patched it, I did find the nag screen annoying. However, having read the author's explanation, I can see his point. The users sending him bug reports on ancient versions of his software do so because their distro's maintainers do not actively encourage source compilation of packages, and are not especially inclined to upgrade their software on a regular basis (i.e., whenever an update to a package comes out). Therefore, when the software has a bug (or is perceived to have a bug by the user), the fact that the distro's maintainers might be at fault for not updating their software never enters the user's mind. He/she is more inclined to complain upstream than laterally. This nag screen is literally the only way he sees of fighting back; I see this as an isolated incident, not likely to be repeated by any other upstream package maintainers.
But this still begs the question, why is xscreensaver so important that it needs to be kept up-to-date over something more important, like your default DE/WM, X, mesa, gimp, or something more important like gcc, glibc, make, etc? Does he think users don't submit bug reports to those people too?

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:
Originally Posted by 1337_powerslacker View Post
If you were the one getting the wrongfully directed bug reports (you instead of the distro maintainers), you might rethink your position. As the old saying goes, "Don't judge a man until you've walked a mile in his shoes."
While I haven't been in his exact position, I've been in several that are similar. For a long time, I was a major contributor on the CyanogenMod forums (until my work blocked access to the site). I constantly had to field the same questions that had already been answered, as well as dealing with bugs reports that have already been fixed (someone installed a nightly 3 months ago and that issue was fixed 2 months ago). While I know it isn't the same as developing a piece of software yourself and getting the bug reports directly, I still have an understanding of the frustration he was going through. However, just like I don't think CyanogenMod should put in nag screens when a nightly build hasn't been updated in X number of days, I don't think the xscreensaver developer should do it either. That just isn't good programming etiquette.
 
3 members found this post helpful.
Old 04-08-2016, 11:21 AM   #14
1337_powerslacker
Member
 
Registered: Nov 2009
Location: Kansas, USA
Distribution: Slackware64-15.0
Posts: 862
Blog Entries: 9

Rep: Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592Reputation: 592
Quote:
Originally Posted by bassmadrigal View Post
But this still begs the question, why is xscreensaver so important that it needs to be kept up-to-date over something more important, like your default DE/WM, X, mesa, gimp, or something more important like gcc, glibc, make, etc? Does he think users don't submit bug reports to those people too?

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.
I also was affected by the polkit issue (I am keeping the working versions of polkit and -gnome until such time as I am satisfied the issue has been resolved), but I don't think this falls under that rubric. XScreensaver is not system-critical; it can easily be deleted with no ill effects.


Quote:
While I haven't been in his exact position, I've been in several that are similar. For a long time, I was a major contributor on the CyanogenMod forums (until my work blocked access to the site). I constantly had to field the same questions that had already been answered, as well as dealing with bugs reports that have already been fixed (someone installed a nightly 3 months ago and that issue was fixed 2 months ago). While I know it isn't the same as developing a piece of software yourself and getting the bug reports directly, I still have an understanding of the frustration he was going through. However, just like I don't think CyanogenMod should put in nag screens when a nightly build hasn't been updated in X number of days, I don't think the xscreensaver developer should do it either. That just isn't good programming etiquette.
I hear what you're saying, but the rules of open source software development, at least as I understand them, do allow for the developer to do what he wants with his own software, despite what we may think about the morality or appropriateness of his approach. That being said, I think I'll keep the patched version of XScreensaver on my computer.
 
Old 04-08-2016, 11:42 AM   #15
bassmadrigal
LQ Guru
 
Registered: Nov 2003
Location: West Jordan, UT, USA
Distribution: Slackware
Posts: 8,792

Rep: Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656Reputation: 6656
Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_powerslacker View Post
I also was affected by the polkit issue (I am keeping the working versions of polkit and -gnome until such time as I am satisfied the issue has been resolved), but I don't think this falls under that rubric. XScreensaver is not system-critical; it can easily be deleted with no ill effects.
If you, like MadMaverick9, tried to wake your computer up and it stayed at a black screen, that seems pretty "system-critical" to me... Granted, if you don't use it, then it certainly isn't a required package, but I think there's plenty of examples where newer versions are not always better versions. Without proper testing with a wide array of people, how can the package maintainers ensure that an update won't screw up an already stable system. When there's a serious security issue, then the package maintainer has to weigh the security issue with the possibly instability of upgrading to a relatively untested version or apply a relatively untested patch.

Quote:
Originally Posted by 1337_powerslacker View Post
I hear what you're saying, but the rules of open source software development, at least as I understand them, do allow for the developer to do what he wants with his own software, despite what we may think about the morality or appropriateness of his approach. That being said, I think I'll keep the patched version of XScreensaver on my computer.
I totally agree with this. It is his software, and he is able to do whatever he wants with it, including having a nag screen present. But, being that it is opensource, package maintainers are also free to patch his software to remove the nag screen. If we are to keep to his wishes to not remove the nag screen and keep it up-to-date, then due to the points I provided above, I don't think it belongs in a "stable" release, because upgrading just to get rid of a nag screen and possibly introducing new bugs is unacceptable in my book. This adds more weight on why this would fit well in SBo. If the user gets a nag screen telling them to update, they fire up sbopkg, sync, check for updates, then get the latest version of the program. Nag screen gone, xscreensaver updated, jwz happy, and hopefully no serious bugs are present in the newer version.

But as has always been the case, my opinions are only mine, and it is up to Pat on what to do.
 
1 members found this post helpful.
  


Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off



Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
LXer: Debian developer loses privileges due to offensive post LXer Syndicated Linux News 2 12-18-2008 08:26 AM
it Seems something really intresting is born(ed) sebus LinuxQuestions.org Member Intro 2 03-14-2006 04:25 PM
Intresting C question exvor Programming 5 11-27-2005 05:00 PM
well this does get intresting wired_duck Linux - Newbie 1 11-15-2003 08:43 AM
This one is gona be intresting Psyman014 Slackware 1 10-02-2003 01:46 AM

LinuxQuestions.org > Forums > Linux Forums > Linux - Distributions > Slackware

All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:39 AM.

Main Menu
Advertisement
My LQ
Write for LQ
LinuxQuestions.org is looking for people interested in writing Editorials, Articles, Reviews, and more. If you'd like to contribute content, let us know.
Main Menu
Syndicate
RSS1  Latest Threads
RSS1  LQ News
Twitter: @linuxquestions
Open Source Consulting | Domain Registration