On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote: > > 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.
Yes, it was. The lock screen had a separate timeout activation, the rest is just an implementation detail. And no, the lock screen was not running in the screensaver process. > yes in the same way as we have screensavers. As a legacy option What do you put in "legacy option"? It's fully supported and in the same place it always has been? Doesn't seem very legacy to me. > > And Gnome is not something to be emulated in the least bit, IMHO. > which is not what I wrote. You said we should drop them because Gnome dropped them. -- Martin Sandsmark