Re: screen savers

["Tom Metro-12" <user=71@nabble.blu.org>]

 Rich Braun wrote: 
> When *will* Linux screensaver support actually work? 
> ... 
> The most common problem I have with the screensaver is that it simply 
> fails to activate:  you come in to the office in the morning and see 
> the same root shell that you were working with the previous day, a 
> major security headache. 

I've been annoyed with this lately too. Have have two Windows boxes 
where the screen saver doesn't automatically start, or the machine won't 
automatically go into standby, and an Ubuntu box that won't 
automatically start its screen saver since the last OS upgrade. 

Regardless of platform, screen savers - and these days that extends to 
power saving mode, as they all work off the same idle detection code - 
tend to be unreliable. Some software turns off screen savers 
intentionally, and other software just interferes with the idle timers 
or I/O timers due to being poorly written. 

On Linux you can use powertop to diagnose some of this stuff. I'm not 
sure what to use on Windows, though I've seen System Internal's (now 
absorbed into Microsoft) Process Explorer recommended. It'll show you 
CPU and I/O activity, but doesn't give an obvious indication of what's 
preventing a machine from going into standby mode. 


Nilanjan Palit wrote: 
>> If I activate certain of the screen-"savers", the motherboard eats 30 
>> watts (!) of additional electricity 
> 
> Well, they are called "screen"-savers, and *not*, "power"-savers for 
> a reason. Screen savers were designed to avoid burn-in of old CRT 
> displays before such technologies matured. However, they stuck and 
> people (including engineers!) continue to confuse them with some sort 
> of a power-saving mode, which they are not. 

True, but it is easy enough to see where the confusion comes from. 
Screen saver settings are often paired with power saving settings these 
days. 

Years ago before the communication between monitors and video cards was 
as sophisticated as it is today, I got into the habit of using blank 
screen savers, which turns off the sync signal that older monitors can 
detect and use to switch to power saving mode. 

I agree that putting some user friendly indication on the screen savers 
that actually save power would be a good idea. 

Of course if all your software is working right, the power saving code 
should be aware that it is just the screen saver running and still put 
your machine in a low power state even if your screen saver chews up a 
lot of CPU. 

  -Tom 

-- 
Tom Metro 
Venture Logic, Newton, MA, USA 
"Enterprise solutions through open source." 
Professional Profile: http://tmetro.venturelogic.com/

-- 
This message has been scanned for viruses and 
dangerous content by MailScanner, and is 
believed to be clean. 

_______________________________________________ 
Discuss mailing list 
[hidden email] 
http://lists.blu.org/mailman/listinfo/discuss