Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote: Let me give my view here: Do you have configured a saver beyond dpms? And if, why? Do you use a locker beyond a black screen? And if, why? yes to both (diashow). Reason: make other people wandering by (or sitting in the same room during a presentation when the screen content is currently not needed but the display is still shown with the beamer, e.g. lengthy discussions) aware of an OS called Linux and a desktop system called KDE. I show pictures from kde-look etc. showing the KDE and Linux logos. Note: I very seldom have my laptop running on battery. Mostly AC, so power saving is of no concern to me. -- Best regards/Schöne Grüße Martin A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top posting bad? () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments Geschenkideen, Accessoires, Seifen, Kulinarisches: www.bibibest.at signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: I consider most effects being bling yes, with that said I like it and appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. offtopicI have to disagree. By default we ship no effect which is bling only. They all add productive value. Even something like a fade effect is a productive value and not bling as it makes the system a more natural thing to use./offtopic I'm sorry but this makes me laugh. What productivity gain do I have when using the Snow or wobbly windows effect ? -- Best regards/Schöne Grüße Martin A: Because it breaks the logical sequence of discussion Q: Why is top posting bad? () ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail /\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments Geschenkideen, Accessoires, Seifen, Kulinarisches: www.bibibest.at signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Thursday 13 October 2011 17:29:16 Martin Koller wrote: On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: I consider most effects being bling yes, with that said I like it and appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. offtopicI have to disagree. By default we ship no effect which is bling only. They all add productive value. Even something like a fade effect is a productive value and not bling as it makes the system a more natural thing to use./offtopic I'm sorry but this makes me laugh. What productivity gain do I have when using the Snow or wobbly windows effect ? Sorry I wanted to write by default we ship no effect enabled which is bling only. Snow btw was my first contribution to KDE and I removed it for 4.7... just for the facts about the importance of bling. Wobbly is of course not enabled by default. As soon as we have a sufficient solution to build and distribute effects not bundled with KWin all non-productive effects will be moved into something like kde-artwork. Cheers Martin signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
Am Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:24:55 +0200 schrieb todd rme toddrme2...@gmail.com: At least for me wobbly windows provides visual feedback when moving windows that I find useful. I used it a lot on compiz, but the Kwin one never really worked all that well but I would have it enabled if it did. Try advanced mode, the presets are somehow odd (to me) Stiffness: 40 Drag: 85 Move factor: 4 but after all, I'd still just consider it an annoyance. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
Am Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:41 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org: Sure it can. Just click Test in the Display Monitor screen saver options. ;) There's probably some DBus call to do the same thing. i thought about kstart --fullscreen kdeasciiquarium, fails because the window us resized externally (configure request) rather than by the screensaver class which probably sets the window fullscreen before the derived constructor is called. I will admit that resize is not supported, mostly because scaling down the text makes it completely impossible to see. From what i can say, the size impacts the amount of fishes and the area size, so it's not just a scale up/down (which should be done adjusting the font size, never by naive pixmap/image scaling. Hinting will more or less ensure the font remains visible) If you happen to meet him and he should actually require guidance in how to fix that, he may just call back. *cough* I'm open to suggestions. from a rough look on the code (still no git?) it seems to be sufficient to catch resize events on Screen (eg. with an eventfilter in AASaver), remove all sprites and do the addAll* from the constructor again. For scaling, the new size would be exposed to the sprites so they can wipe the caches and recreate them with a new font size. I guess my point is pretty much the same actually: Locking and screensaver animations should be orthogonal -- it should continue to be possible to kick off the screensaver without forcing on the lock. No - it should be possible to run nice little animations for personal joy whenever you want, but the screensaver just kicks in because the system is idle - it now had the chance to save a lot of energy AND the screen by simply turning the screen off, since nobody is watching. Instead it's keeping the screen turned on and also peaks the CPU/GPU for really amazing visual things - that unfortunately nobody sees (or wants to see, because otherwise he'd just activated them) = The screensaver hacks (ie. the nifty shows) need some propagation elsewhere, eg. some dropdown your 5 minutes of zen plasmoid. Launching the screensaver kcm and click the demo button is as cumbersome as taking away hands from keyboard and mouse and just wait five minutes or so. Video players usually trigger some action to prevent the screensavers from activation and if you steer on eg. a complex formula, it'd be more than annoying if it suddenly disappears (while xdpms shares this issue with screensavers) So the only sane reason these things to show up automatically is that the system is abandoned and than it's no more sane to run them. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 21.11.03 Martin Gräßlin wrote: On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:12:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote: [...] But you also said that the screensaver without locking was going away in 4.9. This is what I'm against. As Thomas wrote you will always be able to run any animations you want. What will go away is the support for xscreensavers when the screen is locked. But we will make it possible to integrate QML based screensavers into the screen locker. Then all my objections are gone. Thanks for the clarification. /Regards Torgny
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom nyb...@kde.org: Screensaver is bling only No, screensaver hacks are bling only, a screensaver is a software relic. (Semantics) The key aspect is when and why is there eye-candy. You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just ordinary single window applications. You can even run them fullscreen. No problem. BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore), Why? I like this feature. and that was the concept of a screensaver which was just 10 years ago, but is no way today Agreed. - and on battery driven systems actually must be tagged stupid, sorry. But on non battery powered devices? /Regards Torgny
Re: Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote: On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom nyb...@kde.org: Screensaver is bling only No, screensaver hacks are bling only, a screensaver is a software relic. (Semantics) The key aspect is when and why is there eye-candy. You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just ordinary single window applications. You can even run them fullscreen. No problem. BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore), Why? I like this feature. We have to design software which suits the majority of our users. On a mailing list like kde-core-devel I had hoped to not get answers like I like this feature. You are also a developer and I am sure that you have considered in the past to remove a feature which other people liked, but you had to remove it for various reasons. But as said as long as you are on X you can always just run xscreensavers to get your animations. You can also start VLC in fullscreen mode or write a small wrapper for the new to be written QML based animations in the screen locker. and that was the concept of a screensaver which was just 10 years ago, but is no way today Agreed. - and on battery driven systems actually must be tagged stupid, sorry. But on non battery powered devices? even there we should have our defaults to protect the environment by turning off the screen and keeping the CPU in the lowest level. As well we should not give the users the wrong feeling that they need a screen saver to save their screen. Whatever we will call the new animations in the screen locker it will not be a saver. Cheers Martin /Regards Torgny signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Wednesday 12 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote: On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote: On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote: Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom nyb...@kde.org: Screensaver is bling only No, screensaver hacks are bling only, a screensaver is a software relic. (Semantics) The key aspect is when and why is there eye-candy. You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just ordinary single window applications. You can even run them fullscreen. No problem. BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore), Why? I like this feature. We have to design software which suits the majority of our users. On a mailing list like kde-core-devel I had hoped to not get answers like I like this feature. Developers are also users, and probably also like features of KDE :-) Alex
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 20:43:41 Thomas Lübking wrote: Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:46:40 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org: Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for that in kdeartwork someday... ;) Errr... rather not. The author, *cough* who ever he might be *cough* has apparently so far not found the time to implement the resize event, so basically it's the only screensaver hack which can *not* simply be run in fullscreen mode for sheer entertainment only. Sure it can. Just click Test in the Display Monitor screen saver options. ;) There's probably some DBus call to do the same thing. I will admit that resize is not supported, mostly because scaling down the text makes it completely impossible to see. Probably this could work with gamma correction but I haven't tried it yet (and no one has ever reported a bug about that...) If you happen to meet him and he should actually require guidance in how to fix that, he may just call back. *cough* I'm open to suggestions. Yes I do. It's nice to be able to walk away from the computer and let my [...] son move the mouse around or watch the fish move and know that there's at least a half-decent chance he hasn't deleted all my files by the time I got back. I think we've a fundamental misunderstanding about screensavers here. The thread span off because Torgny questioned no screensaver w/o locking and i replied there's no point in that (since protecting the screen isn't required and you can just trigger the show yourself to see it w/o any locking facilities) Sure, but whatever process is waiting to lock the screen normally should be the same process to start a screensaver w/o locking the screen. I'm fully aware that they can be done independently, and I know that what Martin is talking about is just the locking mechanism and not screensavers proper. I guess my point is pretty much the same actually: Locking and screensaver animations should be orthogonal -- it should continue to be possible to kick off the screensaver without forcing on the lock. You do not walk away and just hope your child won't do any s...tuff until the screensaver kicks in and -as a side effect- locks the screen, do you? No. You lock the screen (what as a side effect launches the undersea show), ensure your son has a good seat and sight and then leave, right? If I walk away then this is exactly what I do. I did used to have the mouse corner feature that would enable an unlocked screensaver setup but I disabled that due to too many false positives. ;) The worst thing that actually *could* happen (i don't think so, but the tech details of a final solution are still discussed in the parenting thread) is that the locking visuals (w/ compositing, security reasons) only work as kwin plugin, ie. the asciiquarium would have to be ported once more. I'm willing to port it if necessary, but like you say the final design is still being fleshed out. signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
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. 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. /Regards Torgny
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
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.
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.52.36 Martin Gräßlin wrote: 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? I consider most effects being bling yes, with that said I like it and appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value. 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. But you also said that the screensaver without locking was going away in 4.9. This is what I'm against. I fully agree that the locker is and should be separated from the animation. /Regards Torgny
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200 schrieb Torgny Nyblom nyb...@kde.org: Screensaver is bling only No, screensaver hacks are bling only, a screensaver is a software relic. The key aspect is when and why is there eye-candy. You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just ordinary single window applications. You can even run them fullscreen. No problem. BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) and that was the concept of a screensaver which was just 10 years ago, but is no way today - and on battery driven systems actually must be tagged stupid, sorry. Cheers, Thomas
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in general required to *protect the screen*... who are you to unilaterally declare what is and is not justifiable for a user to want to do with their own computer? Do you mean that it is not justifiable by the reasoning of protecting the screen from damage? Because if so screensavers haven't been required for their original purpose for years and years now, that's nothing new. Regards, - Michael Pyne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org: On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in general required to *protect the screen*... who are you to unilaterally declare what is and is not justifiable for a user to want to do with their own computer? I'm me, everything else would be quite a problem. Maybe justifiable is not exactly the correct English term and it's more like reasonable, to me it's only a nuance, but it could be read much different. I apologize in case i sounded like some Interface-Nazi. Again: i did no way question to run such eye-candy processes for the only reason of eye-candy, not at all. This should not be prohibited and i did not suggest so. To the contrary, i've attached a script to run various matrix animations which serve *no* purpose but watching them. But do you know such reason why somebody should want to use a screensaver a) that does not serve to protect the screen b) that does not serve to protect the account (locker) c) while nobody is there to watch it? Now, if a user really wants to use such process to suck out his battery while he's walking the dog or so, he perfectly can do, and i won't discuss that. He has every right to do, but it's unreasonable behavior nevertheless, is it? The question however is, whether the system should automatically start such process while it could remain completely idle, since this is what happens with screensavers atm. If so, why isn't there an option to calculate Pi to a precision of 10^-(10^100) after an idle time of 5 minutes - that's just as good, isn't? Who declared that it's justifiable to render unseen animations, but that it's not justifiable to calculate Pi (and throw away the result)? Not that it would be any of my business, but i'm curious regarding this discussion: Do you have configured a saver beyond dpms? And if, why? Do you use a locker beyond a black screen? And if, why? Cheers, Thomas
Re: Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote: Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne mp...@kde.org: On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote: BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore) With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in general required to *protect the screen*... who are you to unilaterally declare what is and is not justifiable for a user to want to do with their own computer? Maybe justifiable is not exactly the correct English term and it's more like reasonable, to me it's only a nuance, but it could be read much different. I apologize in case i sounded like some Interface-Nazi. reasonable makes much more sense (it implies that otherwise you're doing something dumb, whereas if you're having to justify doing something you were probably doing something wrong and not merely something unoptimal). But do you know such reason why somebody should want to use a screensaver a) that does not serve to protect the screen b) that does not serve to protect the account (locker) c) while nobody is there to watch it? Now, if a user really wants to use such process to suck out his battery while he's walking the dog or so, he perfectly can do, and i won't discuss that. He has every right to do, but it's unreasonable behavior nevertheless, is it? It would certainly be unreasonable on a laptop if you were actually trying to conserve power. But not every configuration is a laptop. The question however is, whether the system should automatically start such process while it could remain completely idle, since this is what happens with screensavers atm. By default, assuming a laptop profile I'd say no. But I'm not talking about default settings, merely the capability to do it at all. If so, why isn't there an option to calculate Pi to a precision of 10^-(10^100) after an idle time of 5 minutes - that's just as good, isn't? Does it have a nifty visualization? If so maybe someone will code it someday. Otherwise there are plenty of perfectly good ways to dump battery (yes /dev/null springs to mind) although like I mentioned earlier, that's not actually the point. Who declared that it's justifiable to render unseen animations, but that it's not justifiable to calculate Pi (and throw away the result)? Who says they're unseen? Not that it would be any of my business, but i'm curious regarding this discussion: Do you have configured a saver beyond dpms? And if, why? Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for that in kdeartwork someday... ;) I use it because I like it. More importantly, my autistic son is enamored with it. Do you use a locker beyond a black screen? And if, why? Yes I do. It's nice to be able to walk away from the computer and let my aforementioned autistic son move the mouse around or watch the fish move and know that there's at least a half-decent chance he hasn't deleted all my files by the time I got back. For what it's worth, this reasoning also leads me to installing the same screensaver/locker combo on my laptop, knowing full well it will reduce total battery life. But up to now that has been my choice to make. I hope it will continue to be my choice to make in future editions of KDE. :) Regards, - Michael Pyne signature.asc Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
