Reply to topic

Your opinion on screen savers is required

What would you say if KDE Plasma would no longer support X Screensavers?

Poll ended at Sun Oct 09, 2011 10:17 am

I would switch to another Desktop Environment
1%
I would complain
1%
I would miss them but could live without them
8%
I don't use screen savers, it doesn't affect me
53%
Finally new screen savers, thanks a lot
32%
I don't care
5%

Total votes : 286


laz
Registered Member
Posts
1
Karma
0
OS
Currently I disable KDE screensaver because it fails to put the login dialog above the screensaver, it displays it underneath. So I set the KDE screensaver to a blank screen (which gets displayed when I resume from sleep), then disable the KDE screensaver. Install the proper Xscreensaver package and run that. So long as you don't bollocks that up I don't care what you do with KDE screesaver
User avatar plaristote
Registered Member
Posts
114
Karma
0
OS
It has already been said, to make our computers more energy-efficient, we must not use screensaver but turn the screen off while away.

But that doesn't mean screensavers are to disappears : they can change. Screensavers will obviously become that animation playing when your computer is locked and asking for your password. The same way it works on smartphones : you wake up the device, there's an interface asking for you to unlock it (using a numeric code, a pattern or a password, for instance). And if you can't unlock it, it goes back to sleep mode.
I would really love my screensaver to work like that.

And now, there was another proposition made few time ago to use screensavers as wallpapers.
Pray tell us sirs, would these QML-screensaver also be available as wallpaper ? Is it doable in some way ?
And, going that way, why not just make animated wallpaper using QML, and then making a screensaver system that would use the Plasma wallpapers ? This way we may even have the Marble wallpaper as screensaver. That would be cool. Really cool.
Xerdomii
Registered Member
Posts
1
Karma
0
OS
My single use-case for "screen savers" is for locking the session after some time of inactivity and showing some widgets.
For this purpose I have selected "Blank Screen" and "Allow widgets on screen saver".

That's no real use of screen savers, so I voted for:

"I don't use screen savers, it doesn't affect me"

If it would be possible to "Allow widgets on screen locker" it would be perfect, but nevertheless I like the idea and think it is the right way to go.
mgraesslin
KDE Developer
Posts
572
Karma
7
OS
Xerdomii wrote:If it would be possible to "Allow widgets on screen locker" it would be perfect, but nevertheless I like the idea and think it is the right way to go.

We plan to support that also in the new implementation
alamaki
Registered Member
Posts
10
Karma
0
Isn't X on its way out anyway?
Off with their heads. xD
icwiener
Moderator
Posts
46
Karma
0
OS
I think I do not understand the exact implication.
You say X screen savers. Does that affect KDE screen savers?
agostinelli
Registered Member
Posts
6
Karma
0
OS
Thumbs up for the idea to set up a poll!
For the record, I also don't use screen savers.
mgraesslin
KDE Developer
Posts
572
Karma
7
OS
icwiener wrote:I think I do not understand the exact implication.
You say X screen savers. Does that affect KDE screen savers?

The current KDE screen savers just use the xscreensaver application
Leuty
Registered Member
Posts
8
Karma
0
As a user I normally don't comment on "developper stuff". But since I am asked, I'll comment on it here:

I voted for

"I don't use screen savers, it doesn't affect me"

because I think that there is no reason for screen savers in 2011.

Just implement the solution that makes most sense from a technical perspective (the most clean, elegant, secure). Don't focus on implementing a screen saver mechanism atm. If somebody feels like implementing it again at a later point its up to them. Its free software. Do what you like.

Thx for creating great software.
User avatar algotruneman
Alumni
Posts
45
Karma
0
OS
Don't care - don't use screen savers.


open source - open education - open minds
CTown
Registered Member
Posts
40
Karma
0
OS
I agree with plaristote. I would prefer if the lock screen and the screen saver were combined in some way. It would make everything more aesthetically pleasing and hopefully it would work with GHNS!

Can I request that the lock screen can communicate with applications more? For example, when my screen locks, Wifi is turned off. Wouldn't it be better if an application like KGet can request Wifi stays on (but the screen is still locked at this point) until KGet is finished downloading files? I feel it would make more sense on portable devices.

Really appreciated you guys made a poll for this on a forum (much easier to use than lists). Keep up the good work!
mgraesslin
KDE Developer
Posts
572
Karma
7
OS
CTown wrote:I would prefer if the lock screen and the screen saver were combined in some way. It would make everything more aesthetically pleasing and hopefully it would work with GHNS!

That's the idea for the new implementation.

CTown wrote:Can I request that the lock screen can communicate with applications more? For example, when my screen locks, Wifi is turned off. Wouldn't it be better if an application like KGet can request Wifi stays on (but the screen is still locked at this point) until KGet is finished downloading files? I feel it would make more sense on portable devices.

the screen locker does not have anything to do with turning off wifi. That's out of scope for a screen locker. The screen locker is only concerned about locking the screen. What you want is power management which may lock the screen and turn off wifi at the same time.
jrdls
Registered Member
Posts
6
Karma
0
OS
I'm all for it. And I welcome the changes in the architecture of the new screen locking. Go forward.
CTown
Registered Member
Posts
40
Karma
0
OS
mgraesslin wrote:the screen locker does not have anything to do with turning off wifi. That's out of scope for a screen locker. The screen locker is only concerned about locking the screen. What you want is power management which may lock the screen and turn off wifi at the same time.


Sorry, I thought they worked together since when my screen locks, Wifi gets turned off. So, it's just the power management controlling both. Anyway, I'm all for the new solution!
smls
Registered Member
Posts
53
Karma
0
OS
Nowadays, it's normal to just let the screen turn off for power-saving, and also, modern screens don't need "saving" anymore.

So I think screensavers have outlived their usefulness - they've been reduced to obsolete visual gimmicks, probably used mainly by "older" computer users who have become accustomed to them in "earlier times".

As such, they shouldn't be allowed to block the implementation of new, modern security features.

Allowing QML widgets beneath the screen locker's login dialog, on the other hand, might have some valid usecases. And if some users want to place a fullscreen QML widget there that doesn't serve any practical use, but just acts like a screen saver, why not.
But the KDE devs shouldn't in the least feel bad about removing dedicated support for X screensavers (especially when considering that with Wayland, they will break anyways)...

 
Reply to topic

Bookmarks



Who is online

Registered users: Arran, BadBunny, Baidu [Spider], Bing [Bot], bogdan_c, dikasetyaprayogi, Google [Bot], joninchaurbe, kde-jriddell, niccolove, tymond