Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr writes:
In fact, I disagree with Alexandre when he says:
If users want to reconfigure X behavior, they have to use the X configuration programs.
I think Wine is about more than just running Windows applications on Linux. It's about integrating Windows and Linux applications and thus they should be able to manipulate these kind of settings. Otherwise Wine would only support the 'desktop mode' or it would not exist at all and everyone would be happy with running Windows in a sand-box ala VMWare.
I also said there could be exceptions... I agree temporarily disabling the screen saver can be useful, so we probably want to allow at least that. I'm not sure we want to allow messing with the timeout though.
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 11:32:35AM -0800, Alexandre Julliard wrote:
Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr writes:
In fact, I disagree with Alexandre when he says:
If users want to reconfigure X behavior, they have to use the X configuration programs.
I think Wine is about more than just running Windows applications on Linux. It's about integrating Windows and Linux applications and thus they should be able to manipulate these kind of settings. Otherwise Wine would only support the 'desktop mode' or it would not exist at all and everyone would be happy with running Windows in a sand-box ala VMWare.
I also said there could be exceptions... I agree temporarily disabling the screen saver can be useful, so we probably want to allow at least that. I'm not sure we want to allow messing with the timeout though.
Yep, I think the same. Being able to control screen saver activity is pretty damn needed (for DVD/movie players etc.). What is *not* needed is some stupid Windows program messing with my nicely configured timeouts :) We should probably output a warning message informing the user that we won't modify the timeout, though.
Hmm, again, could someone fix the horrible bug in SPI_SETSCREENSAVERACTIVE ? This one leads to pretty stupid blanking in both movie players and, more importantly, InstallShield installers !!
Andriy ? (or should I fix it ?)
--- Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
I also said there could be exceptions... I agree
temporarily disabling
the screen saver can be useful, so we probably
want to allow at least
that. I'm not sure we want to allow messing with
the timeout though. Yep, I think the same. Being able to control screen saver activity is pretty damn needed (for DVD/movie players etc.).
I removed affecting X settings because I did not see reasons to keep them. You gave me more than enough.
What is *not* needed is some stupid Windows program messing with my nicely configured timeouts :)
Would you mind about messing the settings temporarily :-) I'm going to implement integration in such way that the changes to settings from Wine will be only temporary - while single X session. If user wants to have it permanently he/she should change X configuration.
We should probably output a warning message informing the user that we won't modify the timeout, though.
There will be very many such messages. I would not like to do that - useful Wine output can be lost.
Hmm, again, could someone fix the horrible bug in SPI_SETSCREENSAVERACTIVE ? This one leads to pretty stupid blanking in both movie players and, more importantly, InstallShield installers !!
Andriy ? (or should I fix it ?)
I'm on my way :-) I think I'll finish until Monday.
Will be any suggestions about existing strategy of integration with X settings?
Andriy
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
On Fri, Nov 16, 2001 at 11:54:36AM -0800, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote:
What is *not* needed is some stupid Windows program messing with my nicely configured timeouts :)
Would you mind about messing the settings temporarily :-) I'm going to implement integration in such way that the changes to settings from Wine will be only temporary - while single X session. If user wants to have it permanently he/she should change X configuration.
Hmm, it's only possible temporarily anyway ! (current X session !) Wine will never be able to modify X11 settings in general ! So we have three ways of doing it: a) Simply don't care about screensaver timeout b) always set screensaver timeout when requested c) make X11 controlling behaviour configurable
a) would be ok, b) would be terrible IMHO, and c) would be desireable probably. I'd let Alexandre vote about whether to use a) or c), though ;)
We should probably output a warning message informing the user that we won't modify the timeout, though.
There will be very many such messages. I would not like to do that - useful Wine output can be lost.
Hmm, why ?? You could silence it by using a static boolean or so in case programs set it too much.
Hmm, again, could someone fix the horrible bug in SPI_SETSCREENSAVERACTIVE ? This one leads to pretty stupid blanking in both movie players and, more importantly, InstallShield installers !!
Andriy ? (or should I fix it ?)
I'm on my way :-) I think I'll finish until Monday.
Cool :-)
Will be any suggestions about existing strategy of integration with X settings?
Again, maybe make it configurable... [x11drv] "ModifyX11" = "Y" and if it's set to N, then only modify "safe" settings. (hmm, a better name for this variable ?)
--- Andreas Mohr andi@rhlx01.fht-esslingen.de wrote:
I'm going to implement integration in such way that the changes to settings from Wine will be
only
temporary - while single X session. If user wants to have it permanently he/she should change X configuration.
Hmm, it's only possible temporarily anyway ! (current X session !) Wine will never be able to modify X11 settings in general !
Sorry, I was not clear. I mean I'm not going to reset X settings back to the changed values on the next Wine startup. Instead Wine settings will be changed. (You see - I can modify X11 settings, almost in general ;-)
Andriy Palamarchuk
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
On Fri, 16 Nov 2001, Andriy Palamarchuk wrote: [...]
I removed affecting X settings because I did not see reasons to keep them. You gave me more than enough.
What is *not* needed is some stupid Windows program messing with my nicely configured timeouts :)
Would you mind about messing the settings temporarily :-) I'm going to implement integration in such way that the changes to settings from Wine will be only temporary - while single X session. If user wants to have it permanently he/she should change X configuration.
I keep my X server running for 10 to 90 days at a time. So 'temporary' is not so temporary.
But do we really have Windows applications that mess with the timeouts? Unless we know of many applications that really do stupid things, we should let them modify the screensaver timeouts. Otherwise it is just paranoia. And if we don't trust Windows applications we should not let them run in the first place. They are many things worse than changing the screensaver settings that they could do: just imagine all you can do with an evil API like DeleteFile, or CreateWindow.
We should probably output a warning message informing the user that we won't modify the timeout, though.
There will be very many such messages. I would not like to do that - useful Wine output can be lost.
Maybe just a TRACE then. Or maybe a warn though that may be too much.
Hmm, again, could someone fix the horrible bug in SPI_SETSCREENSAVERACTIVE ? This one leads to pretty stupid blanking in both movie players and, more importantly, InstallShield installers !!
Ah, so that's why many installers have this awful flicker.
Andriy asked:
Do you suggest another extreme - "Integrate with X whenever possible"? If not, where do you suggest to draw the line between these two extremes?
I would say that I lean in favor of the "Integrate with X whenever possible" option. But I did not study all the SPI_ settings in enough details to really say that it always makes sense. As Alexandre says there can be exceptions: just not the same ones. Though it may be that by putting our exceptions together we manage to cover all of the SPI settings ;-)
-- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr http://fgouget.free.fr/ Avoid the Gates of Hell - use Linux.
--- Francois Gouget fgouget@free.fr wrote:
But do we really have Windows applications that mess with the timeouts? Unless we know of many applications that really do stupid things, we should let them modify the screensaver timeouts. Otherwise it is just paranoia. And if we don't trust Windows applications we should not let them run in the first place. They are many things worse than changing the screensaver settings that they could do: just imagine all you can do with an evil API like DeleteFile, or CreateWindow.
The worst thing may happen is the same mess with settings as on Windows machines. Most Windows users reinstall OS not more frequently than 2 times a year. Sure, restarting X session so often is a huge annoyance ;-)
Andriy asked:
Do you suggest another extreme - "Integrate with X
whenever
possible"? If not, where do you suggest to draw
the line between
these two extremes?
I would say that I lean in favor of the "Integrate with X whenever possible" option. But I did not study all the SPI_ settings in enough details to really say that it always makes sense. As Alexandre says there can be exceptions: just not the same ones. Though it may be that by putting our exceptions together we manage to cover all of the SPI settings ;-)
Exceptions will be not so many as I see from the first 20 implemented system parameters. For the most system parameters I just don't know what to think. E.g. what type of applications use SPI_GET/SETBEEP, SPI_GET/SETKEYBOARDSPEED, are interested in exact mouse buttons mapping?
Andriy Palamarchuk
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Find the one for you at Yahoo! Personals http://personals.yahoo.com
"Francois Gouget" fgouget@free.fr wrote:
But do we really have Windows applications that mess with the timeouts? Unless we know of many applications that really do stupid things, we should let them modify the screensaver timeouts. Otherwise it is just paranoia. And if we don't trust Windows applications we should not let them run in the first place. They are many things worse than changing the screensaver settings that they could do: just imagine all you can do with an evil API like DeleteFile, or CreateWindow.
I tend to agree with all the words above and want to add my voice to support it.
-- Dmitry.
-
Alexandre Julliard -
Andreas Mohr -
Andriy Palamarchuk -
Dmitry Timoshkov -
Francois Gouget