On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote: > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote: > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200 > > > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom <nyb...@kde.org>: > > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with > > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I > > > use at home all the time. > > > > "Why that?" > > > > xdpms saves you power (and screen, if that would be any necessary) and > > neither the last generation of CRTs nor any consumer quality tft "burns > > in" - the only trouble makers would be plasma (sic! ;-) TVs which still > > suck so much power that you should really turn them off while they're > > not in use. > > > > Locking the screen is a valid requirement, but just rendering some > > fancy stuff (while you're not there anyway) is pointless energy (what > > today often means "battery") wasting. > > By this argument the entire screensaver and all effects should go not just > the lockless screensaver. Sorry, but "effects" are not about "bling" but about improving the user experience. Or do you consider present windows being bling? > > In my oppinion the screensaver mode is a separate usecase then the locked > screen one. Screensaver is bling only, where as the lock is for when you > leave the computer in an untrusted environment and this should be active > from when I leave, not after x min. Yes screen saver/animation and screen locker are completely different things. That is exactly what this is about. I worked on a new screen locker which separates the animation and the locker. Therefore as I wrote having just an animation is a non-valid use case for the locker.
Cheers Martin > > /Regards > Torgny
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
