lubuntu-desktop team mailing list archive

[Jean-Pierre Vidal Piesset <jpxsat@xxxxxxxxx>]

>
> I have never seen a justifiable reason for there existence apart from
> locking the machine if required.

 Personally, i never lock the screen but i'm asuming that's a feature
needed.

> Also, I hate screen locks on my machines.  I would NOT want my screen to
> lock every time it went blank.  Having it as an option would be nice, but
> not as default.

xlock can be launched without password confirmation: "xlock -nolock" - this
should be configurable.

> They serve no other purpose, other than using energy.

 The first time that i installed Lubuntu I've surprised when see that the
> default screensaver consume 60-70% of my processor.

I couldn't be more agree.

> ... it's a energy saving OS too. In the lubuntu.net home page say it:
> "lubuntu is a faster, more lightweight and *energy saving* variant of
> Ubuntu using LXDE"

I think this is a crucial point according to the amount of cpu needed and
the fact that it's an app running on the background consuming Ram... one of
the goals of Lubuntu is to be *efficient*

> For the screen saving, It's relative to CRT screen, which are still used.
> But, having the ability to switch to a blank image maybe is enough. And I
> don't think xlock can do it.

Just try "xlock -mode blank" for the blank image.

> Haven't screen-savers been around forever? Does Lubuntu need to be
> stripped down further?

Been playing a little with xlock and it's sort of a lightweight-screensaver
too, it draws on the screen things that i think most hardware can handle
(i'll give it a try on my old amd-k6 to tell this) - This "screensaver"
should be configurable if the user wants a blank screen or the aleatory
screensaver set by default in xlock

> Should most hardware be able to handle them?

Short answer, i think screensavers for old hardware were not exactly those
in xcreensaver since it demands a good video card to work smoothly.

xlock resulted to me much more attractive than xtrlock, but the problem
remains the same: it can't be launched alone when the machine's been idle
for a determined amount of time, so the idea that it depends on the
power-manager to start sounds like a solution to me (so there are no
additional daemons or apps running). Also xlock options could be handled in
a new tab in the UI of gnome-power-manager, since they would be bundled
(just ideas...)

I would suggest putting it on launchpad as a feature request.

Yes, but i don't know exactly how to say it in short words.

-- 
jpxsat