New lockscreen

[Martin Gräßlin]

On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove
> > the
> > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did
> > you last have a screen which needs to be saved? For background reading I
> > recommend [1].
> 
> I still have CRT screens, and plasma displays (yes, ironic or something) are
> highly susceptible to burn-ins as well. LCD displays usually only have
> transient burn-ins, but it's still annoying. OLED displays seem to be more
> susceptible to burn-ins than plasma displays according to some sources. So
> no, the use case hasn't disappeared at all (it's still the same as it was
> 20 years ago).
and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security? 
Nothing, right.

Btw. we are not the only ones who go the way of removing screen savers in 
favor of lock screens. The same happened at GNOME and at Microsoft. So somehow 
the people working on such features came all independently to the same 
conclusion.

Yes sure there are still CRTs around, there are Plasma screens around and 
somewhen in the future OLEDs might be used which show the problem. Does that 
mean that we should use a default (because that's what it's all about) which 
is not optimal for the 99.9 % of our user base that actually uses LCD screens?
> 
> And I still really like to have the nice asciiquarium to show off whenever I
> leave my computer.
and again that is orthogonal. There is nothing preventing anyone to add an 
animation to the lock screen.
> 
> 
> But if you are going to remove screensaver support, at least do that
> completely, and don't leave a half-broken implementation in place (and mark
> the bugs as related to it as invalid).
the implementation has been kept there AFAIK because people complain that we 
wanted to remove it. It would be nice if the people who want to have the old 
screen savers would step up to support the maintenance. Yes it would have been 
easier to just remove it and would have removed lots of complexitiy. As I 
wrote it's a HACK and has always been like that.

But the discussion again shows that just removing it completely and tell 
people to use XSS if they want screen savers would have been the right choice.

Cheers
Martin
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20130111/7bd98fe7/attachment.sig>