Screensaver to be or not to be

[Matthias Fuchs]

Am 13.10.2011 20:21, schrieb Thomas Lübking:
> [...] it now had the chance to save a lot of energy AND the
screen by simply turning the screen off, since nobody is watching.
 > [...]
> 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.

That assumption is wrong.
First of all why should there be different screen savers if none was 
looking at them?

Second I just saw a screensaver the last days -- not my machine -- how 
is that possible if nobody is watching? Well if you are in an office 
there are more PCs than just yours.
Something like a screen saver is for sure not bad for motivation or 
mood, rather the opposite.

Further being in front of the pc does not mean that you are constantly 
interacting with it. Sometimes you are noting things, reading some 
information which is on paper etc. That is the moment something like a 
"screen-prettisers" (better than saver? ;) ) kicks in which might cause 
a little cheering up.


The argument of saving energy is kinda hypocritical if you look at what 
most people use their computer for. If energy saving is the reason to 
deactivate things that some people enjoy -- they actually see these 
things from time to time -- then anything flash related should be 
deactivated, youtube should not be watched and even better the pc should 
stay turned off most of the time for most people.

Thus energy saving is imo not a valid argument here. Screen prettisers 
are off by default and by default none forces people to visit youtube.
If they decide so, well fine for them.


I understand and agree to the technical reasons against keeping the 
current architecture but that does not mean that I agree to all the 
other arguments.