On Friday 11 January 2013 10:47:40 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security? > > Nothing, right. > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the > screensaver. no, it wasn't. The lock screen had been implemented inside the screen savers. Yes blank screen was just another kind of screensavers. > > > 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. > > Windows 8 still has screensavers AFAIK? yes in the same way as we have screensavers. As a legacy option > > And Gnome is not something to be emulated in the least bit, IMHO. which is not what I wrote. > > > 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? > Where on earth did you pull that statistic from? And while your arguments > may be in favour of using a blank screensaver by default, I think something > that is optimal for 100% of our users is better than 99.9%, and I think you > agree. > > and again that is orthogonal. There is nothing preventing anyone to add an > > animation to the lock screen. > > Sure, let's just make sure it works properly. > > > As I wrote it's a HACK and has always been like that. > > Well, they have always been known as screen hacks, yes, but mostly because > they are clever graphical hacks AFAIK. :-P > > -- > Martin Sandsmark
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
