Karanbir Singh mail-lists@karan.org wrote: BRUCE STANLEY wrote:

In Centos 4.1 I am having to user the Xscreen saver as a work around due to the KDE screen saver not working properly.

Has the KDE screen saver been fixed/updated in Centos 4.3, or do you still need to use xscreensaver instead?

kde's wrapper has always worked fine for me. never had a problem, till i used external repo's to update centos kde stuff.

Does this mean that everyones kde screen saver is working fine under Centos 4.3?

worksforme

BRUCE STANLEY wrote:

*/Jim Perrin jperrin@gmail.com/* wrote:

> Does this mean that everyones kde screen saver is working fine
> under Centos 4.3?

worksforme

Hummm.......shed a little light on 'worksforme'.....

kdescreesaver? gnomescreensaver? xscreensaver?

kpowersave works ok with kdescreensaver?

why dont you make the effort of upgrading and find out for yourself ? 4.3 isnt a whole new distro.. its just 4.x+ all updates till now.

- KB

I sorry that it is too much trouble for you to answer a couple of simple questions as posted.

We did answer. It works for us. I have not seen a bug filed for this at bugs.centos.org, nor has there been a bugreport linked from the upstream vendor so that we can see what's going on or duplicate your issue.

I seem to remember that were some major problems introduced in Centos 4.2 with xorg and some ATI video cards (which I am using). So, it is not a simple thing to just jump into another upgrade as 4.3.

Are we talking the open drivers in the kernel, or the ATI binary drivers? I've had no problem with kde's screensaver when using nvidia hardware.

It would also require re-installing various application programs that I have running under 4.1,

Why? 4.2 and 4.3 are security updates and bugfixes. It should not require a reinstall of anything unless the applications you're using are horribly broken with respect to OS security updates.

I would like to know first if it is worth my while.

There are security updates involved, so the most obvious answer here is 'yes', unless there's some pressing reason holding you back.

The purpose of list like this is to help people when possible with even the simplfest of questions.

I'm not sure that's accurate, but I'll assume for the moment that it is. So far there hasn't been a question. There's been a 'hey does this work yet?' followed by two 'it works for me' answers. We can't give you a definite yes because we're not running your setup. Fire up a test box and check it out for yourself.

When I worked in Tech Support in the past for two different Mini-Computer companies, we were required to support the customers even with the simplest of problems.

When you "worked" is what's key. There's a subtle difference here. We're not getting paid and we don't work for a company. There is nothing that says I have to help you, provide accurate information, be nice, or anything else usually involved with working tech support (been there, done that, have a resulting permanent distrust for all users to show for it). I do this to help others in my spare time because I believe it's the right thing to do. I think you should be fine if you upgrade. If you choose to not trust that and want something definite, that's fine too, but don't expect me to continue helping if you question the answer without showing errors, backtraces, or valid logic to support your paranoia.

If you want that sort of hand-holding, buy a RHEL contract, or purchase support from a 3rd party consultant.

</rant> Probably more hostile than it was meant. I was going for more of the 'defined indifference'.