| Comments: |
With the port to OS X, you've got a pretty solid abstraction layer. It's not like the less popular ones are being that much of a maintenance headache to you, right? So if it's not costing you anything to keep NoseGuy in circulation (hate that fucker, but I'm sure someone somewhere loves him in a way That Nature Just Didn't Intend -- probably someone in Japan or Germany), why even bother with the effort to remove it?
It's not like anything you're likely to remove is going to make much of a difference in compile time on a modern computer. And you're going to make some pervert somewhere very unhappy.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/5887295/515656) | From: ![[info]](http://l-stat.livejournal.com/img/userinfo.gif) jwz
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 6:11 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Imagine you've just downloaded the thing for the first time. 213 screen savers (at current count) is a hell of a lot to sort through. If there is some obvious junk in there that only 3 people in the world are going to like, there's no reason to waste everyone's time with it.
From: keithpjolley
Sat, 20-Dec-2008 6:27 PM (UTC)
speaking of NoseGuy on mac... | (Link)
|
i'm not from germany or japan and i like the noseguy. :) but, why so obscure to enable `fortune` (or any other external program)?
how about tags instead of categories? some obvious tags: 2d, 3d, loads images, mostly black, fills screen, automaton, fractal, configurable text, cycles colors, etc.
this seems like a good idea, but spoils my neatly ordered hierarchical view of the world. having to square the circle to make things fit in a top-down taxonomic straitjacket is better mental exercise.
I like the category idea but then again you'd have to decide what fit where. Maybe 2d and 3d.
Personally I like the ones that echo the old c64 graphics. I have all the savers on random so it takes a while to go through them. Occasionally I'll come across one that I hate but most of them I like.
Have you thought about having XScreensaver phone home and tell you what people are really using? Obviously this would have to be advertised somehow at install time, or maybe it could be opt-in. I don't feel like my choice of screensaver has to be particularly private.
That would open up the possibility of sorting them by popularity in xscreensaver-demo (which would be doing the phoning home anyway).
Making it easier to ignore 'bad' savers would obviate the need to remove my beloved glforestfire
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1838084/552426) | From: eqe
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 6:47 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I got down to GLSnake and then my X server segfaulted. You may point and laugh now.
Lucky you. I only got as far as "ant". Thanks, nvidia!
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/37683093/538038) | From: ts4z
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 7:54 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
I just hope people don't hate the one I wrote, munch, even if it is dull.
Speaking of it, munch and mismunch should probably be folded together, in the spirit of ones like qix that have about six hundred more options than ever get called.
I *think* you might as well let people vote on as many as they want; I don't think it will really change the results that much.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/65297968/159) | From: janux
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 8:18 AM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Hi,
I like munch.
Just sayin'.
how about focusing on its horrible performance, and then i wont have to rip it off of every box i touch.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/83650332/14256) | From: ajaxxx
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 12:14 PM (UTC)
| (Link)
|
Typically that's the fault of whatever display system you're running. A glance at top while running a hack windowed would tell you for sure where the time is going.
If you're running a Mac, go whine to Apple. If you're running X, patches gratefully accepted.
Hm. There are a lot of votes for Greynetic, and it was mentioned up the thread.
While Greynetic isn't as pretty to look at, you say in README.hacking that it's a good hack to start playing with because it's so simple. And you're right.
Is "ease of hacking" going to be a consideration when you cull the herd?
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/1592923/100071) | From: jcurious
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 9:52 PM (UTC)
popular / all collections | (Link)
|
Rather then removing the unpopular ones, just have a package of the top 25 and a package with "the rest"...
so rather then people vote for bottom 10, have them vote for the top 10 and put the top 25 is in a "pop" collection... personally I like "Signal" vs "Noise" collections, but I doubt many people would understand... shrugs
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/30549188/7303230) | From: lloydwood
Mon, 11-Aug-2008 11:37 PM (UTC)
fixed crashes | (Link)
|
typing 'jwz' into a number field no longer kills the System Preferences! yay!
and the wikipedia links make xscreensaver more explicitly educational. All that's missing is a saver that lists its own documented code on the screen...
| From: jwz
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 2:13 AM (UTC)
Re: fixed crashes | (Link)
|
Technically, memscroller does that!
NoseGuy is still the best... everybody gets a kick out of him spewing fortune. Nothin else does Fortune justice.
Plus, if your machine is made out of stale pop-tarts and unaccellerated X11 hatred, he still won't make it break a sweat.
Unfortunately a lot of people have voted to get rid of "sphere" but really that hack has historical value. For one thing it is possibly the oldest hack in the distribution. At the very least it is among the oldest hacks. In its time, it was actually a demo. Just goes to show you that some people have no sense of history.
I also can't believe that two know-nothings voted against XAnalogTV. That is among the greatest hacks of /all time/.
Ant is missing from your list unfortunately. Thanks for letting us vote though.
| From: jwz
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 4:00 AM (UTC)
Re: Ant | (Link)
|
That one's actually gone already, for a couple of years now, because there's some widely-installed Java development thing also called "ant". I picked "delete it" over "deal with the email about it".
Also, that one sucked.
From: mattyj2001
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 5:16 AM (UTC)
Good luck on this | (Link)
|
Getting more than three nerds in a room to agree on even one screensaver to remove, or a top 10 to include, will prove to be an exercise in futility. I think the failure boat has already left the dock for this poll.
JWZ should pick his own top 25 to include then elicit the assistance of the teeming millions to maintain a sourceforge page where users can download whatever additional screensavers they want. They could make it all Ajax-y and flashy to show previews online and whatnot. The fanboys would think you rule.
And the chumps out there that still care this much about screensavers will eventually get over it.
-mattyj2001
If the maintenance is managable I would also vote for keeping them
all. One reason is because some of the simpler ones that fill up the
screen (cynosure, swirl, and coral, to name a few) are nice to run on
the root window.
The other aspect is that I don't see how having too many screensavers is
really a barrier to new users. Don't most distros just enable all of
the hacks that are installed? In that case folks just sit through the
screensavers that are boring to them until something awesome comes up.
Thank you so much for allowing me to participate in this exercise. I have been careful to only vote for ten hacks.
However, if all ten of my votes could instead be counted for greynetic, that would make me very happy.
I admire your Xerox Star userpic.
The problem isn't that XScreensaver has 213 screensavers, is it? It's that users are overwhelmed with choice.
So rather than delete things, why not pick five that look pretty and then create 'packs' that people can download, or some system where we can download the ones we like - it could be like the screenshot gallery, except clicking the images lets us download the screensavers.
That way all the hacker wannabes can install XMatrix on their multi-screen setups, while the crazy ones can watch NoseGuy spew errors because they don't have fortune installed.
| From: lloydwood
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 12:23 PM (UTC)
The five that look pretty | (Link)
|
On the Mac, the pretty and tasteful screensavers are the ones that Apple includes as default with Mac OS X. Xscreensaver is the pack supplying the rest.
Do you notice the distribution of votes? Either screensavers with names starting with the letter A are vastly less awesome than letters later in the alphabet, or there might be a problem with alphabetization here. Either that or people are only familiar with the first few ones they've seen in the screensaver picker. At least it could help you weight results well. Either way, GLForestFire and Greynetic really do suck, apparently. It's a shame* that Livejournal doesn't offer the option to do something like KittenWar, the poor man's Elo rating. * Well, probably not.
| From: jwz
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 5:24 PM (UTC)
distribution | (Link)
|
I know, right? More people hate "Circuit" and "BouncingCow" than "Rotor"? Come on. I think that right there proves that these votes mean nothing.
![[User Picture]](http://l-userpic.livejournal.com/43339602/9850496) | From: dakone
Tue, 12-Aug-2008 5:16 PM (UTC)
Please remove pulsar | (Link)
|
I wrote pulsar many years ago to test graphics card performance.
However, for a long time now the tests it does are irrelevant. ~4000 frames per second on my Quadro 3700? Who cares? It's UGLY.
Take it away Jamie.
Dave
Please keep them all!
I like XScreenSaver *because* of the variety. Also, as others have mentioned here, I like how the different modules in a way show the legacy or history of computer graphics. The simple and dopey ones belong in there. There is a reason they exist.
I think this is more important than kicking a bunch of them out just because some people might not like them. They can just skip those. It doesn't hurt.
| |
