Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

Torgny Nyblom nyblom at
Tue Oct 11 17:02:32 BST 2011

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200
> schrieb Torgny Nyblom <nyblom at>:
> > 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.


More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list