Re: KDE Question
On Wed, 13 Oct 2010, Celejar wrote:
> Interesting, thanks. The look I don't really care about, and switching
> users isn't relevant for me, since I'm the only user of the system.
> The xscreensaver author has a low opinion of gnome-screensaver:
>
> http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/faq.html#gnome-screensaver
> http://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html
>
> But I have no idea how serious his concerns are, and whether they are
> uptodate for current gnome-screensaver.
I am not sure about the gnome screensaver, but he is spot on about
bells-and-whistles-focused unsafe dekstop environment crap being a security
hazard, and it DOES apply to KDE4's screensaver.
I've seen the KDE4 screensaver:
1. Fail to activate, especially if there is a large IO load in 2.6.32's crap
CFQ io scheduler + ext4. This is not surprising, as KDE4 fails to even
switch window *focus* in a heavy IO load, which is utterly insane. Why the
heck does the window manager have to hit the disk to change windows focus?!
2. Leak information (i.e. show the workspace) both when activating (blinks),
and when going out of DPMS or redrawing the screen. Doesn't happen always,
but still...
3. unlock screen due to a segfault
4. delay its activation for weird reasons, leaving everything unlocked.
The KDE4 screensaver has more race conditions than multithreaded code
written by someone who thinks "volatile int" a semasphore make.
> Not a threadjack - I was just curious about the advantages of other
> DE's out there, and wondering what I'm missing ...
There is something to be said about stuff that puts functionality over form.
XFCE is likely to be more stable and safer than anything KDE or Gnome.
--
"One disk to rule them all, One disk to find them. One disk to bring
them all and in the darkness grind them. In the Land of Redmond
where the shadows lie." -- The Silicon Valley Tarot
Henrique Holschuh
Reply to: