On Friday 11 January 2013 12:52:04 Martin Sandsmark wrote: > 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. Martin, please. I did most of the porting to the new architecture and I re- read the code before replying to your mail writing that. Yes, technically the lock is held by a different process which doesn't invalidate what I wrote. > > > 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. I have a huge problem if people twist my words. That is not what I have written and not what I have meant. I quote my words:
"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." there is nothing in it that would say that GNOME at any influenced any of our decisions.
signature.asc
Description: This is a digitally signed message part.
