> On Jun 29, 2020, at 02:46, じょいすじょん <dangerwillrobinsondan...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >>> On Jun 29, 2020, at 15:24, Sandor Szatmari <admin.szatmari....@gmail.com> >>> wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>>> On Jun 28, 2020, at 22:29, じょいすじょん via Cocoa-dev >>>> <cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com> wrote: >>> >>> One way to do this is with the command line tool: >>> caffeinate >>> >>> You could run a background task that starts it with something like >>> caffeinate -dimsu >>> >>> You can probably also find its source code on opensource.apple.com to >>> understand what it does and how. >>> >>> Like here is a version: >>> >>> https://opensource.apple.com/source/PowerManagement/PowerManagement-637.20.2/caffeinate/caffeinate.c.auto.html >>> >>> You certainly still want a user to approve things. >> >> I would say that if the user has the checkbox selected in system preferences >> that ties sleep/screensaver to security (prompt for password on >> sleep/screensaver activation) they have already answered this question. In >> this situation any app that calls caffeinate in the background (or uses an >> API) to circumvent this security settings without informing the user should >> be considered dubious at best and perhaps even malware. In effect this is >> disabling that security choice. If the user has not selected this setting >> in system prefs then there is no issue preventing screensaver from >> activating. I’d recommend this criteria for the basis of whether to >> interfere with normal system operations. >> >> Sandor > > Nobody said circumvent anything. I know you didn’t say circumventing. But, what is being asked is how to prevent screen saver from kicking in. > I believe a user would have to authorize an NSTask or similar usage anyway, > unless they have disabled SIP. Yes. This would inform the user. That would be nice. > I just provided reference to a tool that is already built and bundled that > does this (less code) and the source to that tool (inspiration for other > code). Yes, agreed… > I will not make any claims as to how that works with sandboxing. I > whole-heartedly expect and want any such functionality to be made clear to > users. Yes, you did make that clear. I was hoping to convey to the OP that the goals of this question might have unintended consequences. > That said, it is easy to understand loads of legitimate use-cases for this. Yea, agreed…
Sandor > _______________________________________________ Cocoa-dev mailing list (Cocoa-dev@lists.apple.com) Please do not post admin requests or moderator comments to the list. Contact the moderators at cocoa-dev-admins(at)lists.apple.com Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription: https://lists.apple.com/mailman/options/cocoa-dev/archive%40mail-archive.com This email sent to arch...@mail-archive.com
