Re: xscreensaver, any plan do drop it !!

[Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net>]

On Thu, 2005-07-07 at 20:22 -0400, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-07-06 at 11:28 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> > gnome-screensaver is about a lot more than "making it look better." 
> > Let's try to move the conversation past that point.
> 
> (Yay, very happy to see this happening!)
> 
> > I've tried to put some information in the Wiki:
> > http://live.gnome.org/GnomeScreensaver
> > 
> > I'll be happy to try to answer any specific questions and criticism.
> 
> 1. How do see this being integrated with power management solutions like
> e.g. the existing gnome-power project and some of the ideas that were
> discussed at GUADEC [1]? 
> 
> To me it seems like there's some common ground in e.g. detecting user
> being idle (and the user is not idle when e.g. watching a movie or doing
> a presentation so we need app input (maybe just --poke, but is that
> secure?)) and enforcing policy (blanking screen, invoking screensaver /
> locking workstation, putting into suspend, asking the user to
> authenticate when resuming / unlocking screensaver).
> 
> Also, ideally the user would have a single dialog where the following
> timeouts a-d can be configured: 
> 
>  a) invoke screensaver; 

I filed this some time ago:
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=308233

We definitely need a way to have a poke at the screensaver so that it
doesn't get enabled without resorting to the current fake key events
hacks.

>  b) blank screen; 
>  c) suspend-to-ram   (may not be available)
>  d) suspend-to-disk  (may not be available)

Aren't those better suited at the HAL level?

---
Bastien Nocera <hadess hadess net> 
Poor old Lazenby. I mean, he just wasn't an actor. -- Desmond 'Q'
Llewelyn