Has Gnome 3 decided that people shouldn't want screen savers?(jwz.org)
jwz.org
Has Gnome 3 decided that people shouldn't want screen savers?
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/has-gnome-3-decided-that-people-shouldnt-want-screen-savers/
5 comments
Originally, screensavers were created to prevent burning the image of the unattended desktop to CRT monitors.
Now that we've progressed past that problem, screensavers don't serve any tangible purpose other than to waste electricity and look cool like you've said.
I guess pro-screensaver people will argue you can have informative screensavers with things like the current weather, time, things like that.
Now that we've progressed past that problem, screensavers don't serve any tangible purpose other than to waste electricity and look cool like you've said.
I guess pro-screensaver people will argue you can have informative screensavers with things like the current weather, time, things like that.
Mine runs screensaver for five minutes after locking the screen, and then turns the monitors off.
I run the screensaver for two reasons:
1. Coworkers can tell at a glance whether I've been gone awhile, or whether I just stepped into the bathroom or something
2. It's nice coming back to a quick break with something pretty on the screen, instead of waiting the second it takes for monitors to wake up.
For awhile I had The Apple][ xscreensaver module printing a random wikipedia entry; now I have the Matrix one to placate my inner high school self. ("This is EXACTLY what I imagined my future to be!")
To actually answer your question, though:
> Why would you want to spend cpu time/electricity executing, rendering, and displaying a screen saver when the alternative is to save $$?
> Whatever, I'm glad.
What's it matter to you? It's my cpu time, my electricity, and my money. Don't take the option away from me. If I want to do the same thing as you, I'll set it up that way.
I run the screensaver for two reasons:
1. Coworkers can tell at a glance whether I've been gone awhile, or whether I just stepped into the bathroom or something
2. It's nice coming back to a quick break with something pretty on the screen, instead of waiting the second it takes for monitors to wake up.
For awhile I had The Apple][ xscreensaver module printing a random wikipedia entry; now I have the Matrix one to placate my inner high school self. ("This is EXACTLY what I imagined my future to be!")
To actually answer your question, though:
> Why would you want to spend cpu time/electricity executing, rendering, and displaying a screen saver when the alternative is to save $$?
> Whatever, I'm glad.
What's it matter to you? It's my cpu time, my electricity, and my money. Don't take the option away from me. If I want to do the same thing as you, I'll set it up that way.
Screen-savers to me a relic from a time of phosphor burn-in, slow starting monitors and an annoyance that I turn-off.
I think GNOME 3 was right to not maintain them.
I think GNOME 3 was right to not maintain them.
What bothers me about most of the things that Gnome 3 has done recently is that they are not only changing things, but actively making it harder to change them back.
Basically in the same boat. Gnome 3 left me with no equivilent to what gnome2 was and now I'm stuck with xfce or an ubuntu LTS/debian until they get upgraded.
Many, many LCDs still use fluorescent backlights. Turning that backlight on and off prematurely ages the lamp. Just like a CRT, you want to turn it off (put it into sleep) when the cost of the electricity outweighs the cost to lamp life -- e.g. overnight.
You should always have a screensaver, even if it's just "blank screen," for when you lock your workstation for short periods.
You should always have a screensaver, even if it's just "blank screen," for when you lock your workstation for short periods.
KDE 4.8 might not have a screensaver either, for completely different reasons. http://blog.martin-graesslin.com/blog/2011/10/new-screen-loc... (they don't play well with the new compositor)
The post says that the 20-year-old screen savers probably will stop working, and that's simply because KDE is trying to make progress. It's very well stated and makes sense. You can rewrite them or make new ones in the new system, screen savers will still be supported in KDE.
The GNOME people are saying "I don't think you need screensavers, so you don't get them anymore", and aparently with about as little tact as possible.
The GNOME people are saying "I don't think you need screensavers, so you don't get them anymore", and aparently with about as little tact as possible.
Whatever, I'm glad.