Re: Question regarding offensive material
* Andrew Suffield | On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: | I therefore propose | that we do the following: | | * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that | shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. | | This is called 'power management', and is enabled by default on every | installation of X, last I looked (configure with 'xset dpms'). A | 'screensaver' is those things which display silly animations, and has | to be installed extra. | | So just don't install any screensavers. Why did you? Because dpms doesn't lock your screen and provide at least _some_ security. -- Tollef Fog Heen,''`. UNIX is user friendly, it's just picky about who its friends are : :' : `. `' `- -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Thu, Jun 23, 2005 at 10:05:11PM +0200, Tollef Fog Heen wrote: * Andrew Suffield | On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: | I therefore propose | that we do the following: | | * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that | shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. | | This is called 'power management', and is enabled by default on every | installation of X, last I looked (configure with 'xset dpms'). A | 'screensaver' is those things which display silly animations, and has | to be installed extra. | | So just don't install any screensavers. Why did you? Because dpms doesn't lock your screen and provide at least _some_ security. Ah, so you want a screen locker, not a screensaver? That's probably a valid point. We could use a decent generic X screen locker that didn't do any dumb shit. Just black the screen and wait for a keystroke. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
2005/6/17, Jonas Meurer [EMAIL PROTECTED]: That's simply another way to say that the group of people who are offended is a minority. even if the group where the material is popular is a minority itself? I think the case is: - a minority are offended - a minority like it - a majority grew up and simply don't care and wonder who thought it was funny enough to include in the first place. In that case what's the right answer? Figure out which minority is bigger? I'm in the don't care group and feel the maintainer can decide whichever way he likes. Have a nice day, Martijn
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. the problem is, that most of these sexual pictures or whatsoever are created and even provided because they're offending. maybe not to offend somebody directly, but rather because offending material is that popular. the problem that it presumes somebody who feels offended is simply ignored. bye jonas -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. the problem is, that most of these sexual pictures or whatsoever are created and even provided because they're offending. maybe not to offend somebody directly, but rather because offending material is that popular. That's simply another way to say that the group of people who are offended is a minority. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On 17/06/2005 Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. the problem is, that most of these sexual pictures or whatsoever are created and even provided because they're offending. maybe not to offend somebody directly, but rather because offending material is that popular. That's simply another way to say that the group of people who are offended is a minority. even if the group where the material is popular is a minority itself? most minorities are a majority in particular communities. white men for example are a minority on earth, but a majority in the open source world. bye jonas signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 07:19:21PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: On 17/06/2005 Andrew Suffield wrote: On Fri, Jun 17, 2005 at 04:25:43PM +0200, Jonas Meurer wrote: On 15/06/2005 Thijs Kinkhorst wrote: Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. the problem is, that most of these sexual pictures or whatsoever are created and even provided because they're offending. maybe not to offend somebody directly, but rather because offending material is that popular. That's simply another way to say that the group of people who are offended is a minority. even if the group where the material is popular is a minority itself? I think you'll find that porn is the majority industry on the internet. -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On 6/17/05, Andrew Suffield [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: I think you'll find that porn is the majority industry on the internet. The Internet is, to zeroth order, useful only for the same four things that interactive TV is well suited for: video games, gambling, pornography, and pornographic gambling video games. Its first-order uses are cracker joyriding, make-money fast schemes, and hot chat leading to occasional sexual assignations (oddly parallel to the zeroth-order uses), plus ripping off copyrighted media and movement of large military science data sets. Usages that you wouldn't be ashamed to admit to your mother are second-order effects at best. These proportions are essentially unchanged since the opening of the Internet to general US undergraduate populations in the mid-80's. Ask anyone who's worked at an ISP or in a university IT department. This does not, of course, mean that I approve of any software on my systems downloading random _anything_ from the internet without my very explicit approval. It astonishes me that anyone opposes the instant removal of something so fundamentally stupid to include in the Debian operating system. Cheers, - Michael
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 04:08:57PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: * Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]: than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. Make that contains remote references to natural human reproduction since the reproduction of amoebas would hardly offend anyone. Are we banning any of John Conway's Life demos as they show abstract cellular reproduction? x-) Those dirty, dirty ameoba! cheers, kev -- counter.li.org #238656 -- goto counter.li.org and be counted! `$' $' $ $ _ ,d$$$g$ ,d$$$b. $,d$$$b`$' g$b $,d$$b ,$P' `$ ,$P' `Y$ $$' `$ $ ' `$ $$' `$ $$ $ $$g$ $ $ $ ,$P $ $$ `$g. ,$$ `$$._ _. $ _,g$P $ `$b. ,$$ $$ `Y$$P'$. `YP $$$P' ,$. `Y$$P'$ $. ,$. signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Question regarding offensive material
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. Perhaps maintainers should publish PICS ratings[0] for each of their packages, which can be placed in the package control information, or incorporated into a debtags offensiveness facet? ;) [0] http://www.w3.org/PICS/ -- Sam Morris http://robots.org.uk/ PGP key id 5EA01078 3412 EA18 1277 354B 991B C869 B219 7FDB 5EA0 1078 -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
* Josselin Mouette [EMAIL PROTECTED]: It's been suggested to rename erect penis into DPL's tentacle. That sounds good. What about flaccid penis and vagina? -- _ Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin _ Ralf Hildebrandt i.A. des IT-Zentrums | Netzwerkdienste Stabsstelle des Klinikumsvorstandes Campus Benjamin Franklin Hindenburgdamm 30 | Berlin Tel. +49 30 450 570155 | Fax +49 30 450 570962 [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.charite.de -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery ... 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. I think the answers I would give are yes, minor or wishlist, and no. I have no problems understanding that someone may be offended by even abstract references to sexual organs. Many people are quite sensitive to such things, whether it is sensible or not. On the other hand, there are more serious issues with screensavers, such as fears that certain types of quick animation can induce epileptic seizures, and more importantly that running a screensaver makes the computer use more electricity than necessary and is therefore bad for the environment. I therefore propose that we do the following: * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. * All other modules go into a separate package with a warning that they are evil. * Work on getting suspend-to-disk (swsusp or whatever) working properly on as much hardware as possible and then make the default to put computers automatically to sleep (not just the screen) when they are idle (no significant cpu or network use). Obviously this needs to be configurable: wouldn't want a server go to sleep just because the network has been down for an hour. And no, I'm not joking. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:51:31PM +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt wrote: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. The idea of being sexually offended by a particular configuration of simple geometric shapes seems rather bizarre. Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for the genitalia references here, so -- why *not* call the first of these models wizard's staff with a knob on the end? GLSnake also seems to make singularly curious use of the word flaccid; and none of these models seem to correlate very well with the many penises and vaginas that WebCollage has been showing me; so I think it would be best if this package were updated to either disable these models by default, or to include better names for them. Or split the screensaver into GLSnake and (disabled) GLTrouserSnake components, I guess... Is it a bug? Well, the package does not perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users. Unless you believe it's somehow a *feature* that the GLSnake screensaver is unsuitable for these users (while giving no overt indication that this is the case), then the other explanation is that it's a bug. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) Does the severity matter? It should be trivial to fix, should it not? I would personally be inclined to treat this as severity: important, were it my package; but changing severities is less important than fixing bugs. 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. Nope... -- Steve Langasek postmodern programmer -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
* Steve Langasek [EMAIL PROTECTED]: The idea of being sexually offended by a particular configuration of simple geometric shapes seems rather bizarre. Indeed. It's the naming, though! Nevertheless, I don't see any reason for the genitalia references here, so -- why *not* call the first of these models wizard's staff with a knob on the end? I love that (for obvious reasons). GLSnake also seems to make singularly curious use of the word flaccid; and none of these models seem to correlate very well with the many penises and vaginas that WebCollage has been showing me; Tits galore, I say! so I think it would be best if this package were updated to either disable these models by default, or to include better names for them. I favour the latter idea. jwz will flame me for that. Or split the screensaver into GLSnake and (disabled) GLTrouserSnake components, I guess... :) Is it a bug? Well, the package does not perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users. Wait! Nobody ever complained, except for that guy. So I guess it must perform in a way that matches the expectations of a large number of users! Unless you believe it's somehow a *feature* that the GLSnake screensaver is unsuitable for these users (while giving no overt indication that this is the case), then the other explanation is that it's a bug. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) Does the severity matter? It should be trivial to fix, should it not? Indeed. I would personally be inclined to treat this as severity: important, were it my package; but changing severities is less important than fixing bugs. I have a penis, I'm not offended by it. Neither should you. Anyway, perhaps it's renaming time. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Le mercredi 15 juin 2005 à 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt a écrit : I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. It's been suggested to rename erect penis into DPL's tentacle. -- .''`. Josselin Mouette/\./\ : :' : [EMAIL PROTECTED] `. `'[EMAIL PROTECTED] `- Debian GNU/Linux -- The power of freedom
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
ke, 2005-06-15 kello 12:51 +0200, Ralf Hildebrandt kirjoitti: There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. A recurring problem. There's no limit to what people can be offended about. I could be offended by some passages in the bible (e.g. advocating the killing of homosexuals), but I see this in its context (it was written in the middle ages) and thus make no fuss about it if I would accidentally read it. Unfortunately people that are easily offended will always exist, even by simple human body parts displayed in a very abstract manner (more abstract than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. Regarding the specific subject of screensavers: On Wed, June 15, 2005 13:32, Lars Wirzenius wrote: * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. * All other modules go into a separate package with a warning that they are evil. * Work on getting suspend-to-disk (swsusp or whatever) working properly This is the most wise contribution to any recent screensaver discussion in Debian! I wholly support this plan, please do. Thijs -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding 'offensive' material
* Thijs Kinkhorst [EMAIL PROTECTED]: than the pictures in any sexual education book). So we have to do something about it, because it's a given. I was thinking that maybe debtags would provide a solution. You can invent a tag contains remote references to natural reproduction and anyone can use that to filter out unwanted packages. Make that contains remote references to natural human reproduction since the reproduction of amoebas would hardly offend anyone. This is the most wise contribution to any recent screensaver discussion in Debian! I wholly support this plan, please do. I must admit, it sounds sane and absolutely solves the puritan problem. -- Ralf Hildebrandt (i.A. des IT-Zentrums) [EMAIL PROTECTED] Charite - Universitätsmedizin BerlinTel. +49 (0)30-450 570-155 Gemeinsame Einrichtung von FU- und HU-BerlinFax. +49 (0)30-450 570-962 IT-Zentrum Standort CBF send no mail to [EMAIL PROTECTED] -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
This one time, at band camp, Ralf Hildebrandt said: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery This reminds me all to well of the hot-babe controversity, with the difference that xscreensaver has been in Debian for ages a nobody ever complained about that offensive material. My questions: = 1) Is it a bug at all? There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery. It is a software implementation of a cartoon representation of a toy being made in shapes vaguely reminiscent of huan body parts. I hardly see this as a bug. If you are interested in catering to people who are offended by random things, then you could work on it if you like. I would not be inclined to, personally. I think there will always be people offended by something, and that is just not my problem, and not Debian's problem. 2) Which Severity is fitting (if it is considered a bug) wishlist at best, IMHO. Since it is not a bug in any technical aspect, it most closely maps to 'feature request' in my mind. But I generally hate severity wars, so deciding the course of action for the bug (e.g., wontfix/close vs. working on it) is more important to me than the severity, really. 3) Is there any section in the Debian Policy that addresses these social/psycholgical issues? I had a look, but could only find issues related to freedom and licenses. Not a one, and this is why I feel it is not Debian's problem. Maybe I'm just old fashioned, but I really feel like it is not out job to police what people are able to see and do with the software in Debian. That is up to the people who administer machines with Debian installed. I admin a gateway/proxy server at a school, and it has very restrictive web filtering, because the school people feel that is appropriate for their setting. There are also no screen savers installed on that machine :) But I don't want you to make that decision for me. Maybe on my home machine I want to see a cartoon toy vagina, maybe I don't. -- - | ,''`.Stephen Gran | | : :' :[EMAIL PROTECTED] | | `. `'Debian user, admin, and developer | |`- http://www.debian.org | - signature.asc Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Hi!
* Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] [050615 12:51]:
I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug:
#313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery
Interessting... my I report the wishlist bug, that it should be possible
with GLSnake to show a specific - uhm - thing?
1) Is it a bug at all?
There's no technical problem in the program per se. It's just that
this one person may find it contains sexually inappropriate imagery.
Acutally, I think calling those things bugs is a waste of time...
looking at the Fedora-Installation they seemed to had similar problems,
they do the following:
-{ k's turd,
+{ caterpillar,
-{ arse gegl,
+{ gegl,
-{ kissy box,
+{ ribbon,
-{ erect penis, /* thanks benno */
+{ shuffle board, /* thanks benno */
-{ flaccid penis,
+{ anchor,
-{ vagina,
+{ engagement ring,
-{ Penis,
+{ Shuttle,
That leaves just two questions:
- What is a gegl? I couldn't find it in any dictionary.
- Perhaps we should ask the Debian Women projekt, if it would be okay,
if we replace vagina with engagement ring ;)
(Oh, I shouldn't have made this joke, should I?)
Well, perhaps it would be easier, if glsnake would just be called with
the parameter --without-title, leaving everything to the fantasy of
the viewer (BTW: I really think, that the prayer looks quite similar to
the normal penis), but we would then risk getting bug reports of people
who thing that the flamingo is a double headed dildo...
Well, I think I mail the fedora patch to the bts, they seem to patch a
bit more, e.g. removing bad words from the barcode screensaver. So we
just risk to get bug reports by people, who get offended by religous
material: glsnake randomly shows a crucifix!
Yours sincerely,
Alexander
--
http://learn.to/quote/
http://www.catb.org/~esr/faqs/smart-questions.html
signature.asc
Description: Digital signature
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, 2005-06-15 at 17:41 +0200, Alexander Schmehl wrote: - What is a gegl? I couldn't find it in any dictionary. Genetically Engineered Goat (extra Leg). Part of GNOME folklore, google will tell you more. Ross -- Ross Burton mail: [EMAIL PROTECTED] jabber: [EMAIL PROTECTED] www: http://www.burtonini.com./ PGP Fingerprint: 1A21 F5B0 D8D0 CFE3 81D4 E25A 2D09 E447 D0B4 33DF signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part
Re: Question regarding offensive material
Ralf Hildebrandt [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: I'm asking for guidance regarding this bug: #313492: xscreensaver/GLSnake has sexually inappropriate imagery It seems to me that it's a wishlist item. It also seems to me that a reasonable course would be to disable it by default, but leave it as an option. Second most reasonable would be the reverse. -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 12:12:26PM +0100, Sam Morris wrote: Perhaps maintainers should publish PICS ratings[0] for each of their packages, which can be placed in the package control information, or incorporated into a debtags offensiveness facet? ;) No. I consider offensive some parts on the bible, which go against my common sense of evolutionary scientist, and i could go on and on, and Debian is not the place to discuss if they are suitable or not. They are open [1], thus they are in Debian. [1] gg: DFSG -- Jesus Climent info:www.pumuki.org Unix SysAdm|Linux User #66350|Debian Developer|2.6.10|Helsinki Finland GPG: 1024D/86946D69 BB64 2339 1CAA 7064 E429 7E18 66FC 1D7F 8694 6D69 Good night and sweet dreams... which we'll analyze in the morning. --Dr Alex Brulov (Spellbound) -- To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] with a subject of unsubscribe. Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Re: Question regarding offensive material
On Wed, Jun 15, 2005 at 02:32:36PM +0300, Lars Wirzenius wrote: I therefore propose that we do the following: * Don't install any screensaver modules whatsoever, except one that shows a blank screen and turns off the monitor after a while. This is called 'power management', and is enabled by default on every installation of X, last I looked (configure with 'xset dpms'). A 'screensaver' is those things which display silly animations, and has to be installed extra. So just don't install any screensavers. Why did you? -- .''`. ** Debian GNU/Linux ** | Andrew Suffield : :' : http://www.debian.org/ | `. `' | `- -- | signature.asc Description: Digital signature
