On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security? > Nothing, right.
Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the screensaver. > Btw. we are not the only ones who go the way of removing screen savers in > favor of lock screens. The same happened at GNOME and at Microsoft. So > somehow > the people working on such features came all independently to the same > conclusion. Windows 8 still has screensavers AFAIK? As does OS X. And Gnome is not something to be emulated in the least bit, IMHO. > Yes sure there are still CRTs around, there are Plasma screens around and > somewhen in the future OLEDs might be used which show the problem. Does that > mean that we should use a default (because that's what it's all about) which > is not optimal for the 99.9 % of our user base that actually uses LCD screens? Where on earth did you pull that statistic from? And while your arguments may be in favour of using a blank screensaver by default, I think something that is optimal for 100% of our users is better than 99.9%, and I think you agree. > and again that is orthogonal. There is nothing preventing anyone to add an > animation to the lock screen. Sure, let's just make sure it works properly. > As I wrote it's a HACK and has always been like that. Well, they have always been known as screen hacks, yes, but mostly because they are clever graphical hacks AFAIK. :-P -- Martin Sandsmark
