In comp.unix.programmer Lew Pitcher <
lew.p...@digitalfreehold.ca> wrote:
> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 10:34:38 +0000, Muttley wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 17 Aug 2023 12:30:05 +0800
>> Po Lu <
luan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>X screensaver protocols don't suffer from vague documentation. But
>>>instead, they suffer from incoherent design and interoperability issues.
>>>
>>>The core screen saver requests and the MIT screen saver extension are
>>>both hopelessly misdesigned: they designate a server-managed window as
>>>the screen saver window, and place the responsibility for activating the
>>>screen saver in the hands of the server itself, precluding clients
>>>displaying screen savers from either customizing the visual used by the
>>>screen saver window or controlling the activation of the screen saver
>>>themselves.
>>
>> It definately has an last minute afterthought feel about it.
>>
>> "Did we forget something? Oh shit, screensaver! Quick, somebody hack something
>> up fast!"
>
> But, given that a screensaver's primary responsibility is to prevent burnin,
> X already has a built-in "screensaver": it simply blanks the screen after
> a given length of time (see xset(1) dpms options).
footprint. So the simple blank screen is a superior choice, because