On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 20:22 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote: > On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 11:28 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote: > > gnome-screensaver is about a lot more than "making it look better." > > Let's try to move the conversation past that point. > > (Yay, very happy to see this happening!) > > > I've tried to put some information in the Wiki: > > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver > > > > I'll be happy to try to answer any specific questions and criticism. > > 1. How do see this being integrated with power management solutions like > e.g. the existing gnome-power project and some of the ideas that were > discussed at GUADEC [1]? > > To me it seems like there's some common ground in e.g. detecting user > being idle (and the user is not idle when e.g. watching a movie or doing > a presentation so we need app input (maybe just --poke, but is that > secure?)) and enforcing policy (blanking screen, invoking screensaver / > locking workstation, putting into suspend, asking the user to > authenticate when resuming / unlocking screensaver). > > Also, ideally the user would have a single dialog where the following > timeouts a-d can be configured: > > a) invoke screensaver;
I filed this some time ago: http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308233 We definitely need a way to have a poke at the screensaver so that it doesn't get enabled without resorting to the current fake key events hacks. > b) blank screen; > c) suspend-to-ram (may not be available) > d) suspend-to-disk (may not be available) Aren't those better suited at the HAL level? --- Bastien Nocera <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Poor old Lazenby. I mean, he just wasn't an actor. -- Desmond 'Q' Llewelyn _______________________________________________ desktop-devel-list mailing list [email protected] http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
