I just installed 32-bit fedora8 Linux, and was setting preferences when
I encountered a problem - I must assume a bug.

I was looking at screensavers in the screensaver preferences application
when I got to "skyrocket". Nothing displayed after a long time, so I ran
the "system monitor" application and found process "rss-glx-skyrocket"
was apparently the offender. The system monitor displayed very strange
values for this process! The "%CPU" column varied between 60%~90%,
but the "status" column said "sleeping" - and this never changed at all.
And the screensaver preferences application is totally locked up - the
mouse and keyboard have no effect (can't change screensaver, etc).

This makes no sense! How can the skyrocket process be constantly
"sleeping" --- yet be consuming ~75% of the CPU time?

As a confirmation that "this is very wrong", I figured out a way to kill
the "rss-glx-skyrocket" process and get another screensaver running.
Not trivial actually - since the screensaver application starts up
running whatever screensaver was last running. Uh, oh! :-(

Anyway, I did manage to get around this problem, and get another
screensaver running. Then I clicked the "skyrocket (silent)" screensaver,
which (I assume) is identical to "skyrocket" - except without sound.

That works and displays a moving 3D view of a fireworks display, with
no sound. The "system monitor" says this process also consumes about
75% of the CPU time --- but is marked "running" instead of "sleeping".
Now *that* makes sense!

So I've got to assume the "non-silent" version of "skyrocket" must have
called some library or driver function (?sound library/driver?), which hangs,
thereby convincing the system monitor that "skyrocket" is "sleeping".
However, strange that it still credits the CPU consumption to "skyrocket",
and not the library/driver process. But then again, I don't know exactly
how the system monitor distinguishes shared libraries (much less drivers),
or whether it even displays them in its list of processes (as separate).

Anyway, do others have the same problem with this screensaver?
Is this a bug, or I am doing something stupid?