>On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
>> Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
>
>IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.
>
>> There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem, that can/should
be
>> discussed on the xdg list:
>>
Jim Gettys wrote:
Wel, the history is like this:
XSetScreenSaver and friends are original to the X11 core protocol, and
have no support for user space screen savers at all. The screen saver
extension "MIT-SCREEN-SAVER" to do so came along a few years later. It
might have been nice if it made e
Matthias Hopf wrote:
On Feb 14, 06 15:22:24 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote:
Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.
I did put "solution" in quotes, for a re
Wel, the history is like this:
XSetScreenSaver and friends are original to the X11 core protocol, and
have no support for user space screen savers at all. The screen saver
extension "MIT-SCREEN-SAVER" to do so came along a few years later. It
might have been nice if it made explicit provision fo
On Feb 14, 06 15:22:24 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
> On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote:
> > Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
> >IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.
>
> I did put "solution" in quotes, for a reason... I g
On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Mattias Hopf wrote:
> Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
>IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.
I did put "solution" in quotes, for a reason... I guess I'm being too
subtle: let's call a spade a shovel th
On Feb 14, 2006, at 3:03 PM, Matthias Hopf wrote:
...
I think something related to the X protocol (e.g. *no* DBUS) is much
more convenient, because one wants to disable the screen saver on a
particular display. Authorization and identification comes for free
when
done using the X protocol.
W
On Feb 14, 06 14:50:06 -0500, Jim Gettys wrote:
> Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
IMHO it is not a solution at all. It is an ugly workaround, a kludge.
> There are (at least) two ways to solve this problem, that can/should be
> discussed on the xdg list:
>o us
Xtst is a local only "solution". As such, it doesn't help LTSP.
The fundamental issue is a desktop communications issue: knowing that at
least one application is currently active that has good reason to
believe the screen saver should be suppressed. Examples: video player
(at least when full scre
On Feb 09, 06 13:50:03 +0100, Christian Fredrik Kalager Schaller wrote:
> Hi,
> Well in regards to the screensaver issue I thought that already where a
> solution, but it could be its GNOME specific atm. In GNOME 2.14 Totem
> for instance is able to tell gnome-screensaver to not activate using
> db
10 matches
Mail list logo
