[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: xfce4-screensaver

Hash: SHA256

On Wed, 2018-11-21 at 18:00 -0500, Sean Davis wrote:
> Pros:
> - Integration with the Xfce desktop (Xfdesktop, Xfce Power Manager, Xflock,
> Xfconf, Garcon, Xfce Settings Manager)
> - Support for xdg-screensaver, ConsoleKit, Systemd
> - DBUS interface for limited control and querying of the screensaver
> - Idle time and inhibition state are based on the X11 Screensaver extension
> - No GNOME or MATE dependencies

I know it's easy to say but not easy to code, but wouldn't it be better to
actually share the load and contribute to GNOME or MATE screensavers, and make
sure there's some kind of runtime managed dependencies, so people can use the
same codebase but it behaves differently depending on the desktop environment
it's running in and the dependencies installed?

> - Based on the GNOME and MATE screensavers, so the majority of the codebase
> is broadly used and tested

But that also means embedded code copies, which is painful to handle for
security updates. And for screen lockers it's not really rhetorical.
> Cons:
> - Yet another screensaver
> - Young, not widely tested

Also, while I don't caution the way JWZ interacts with users and
distributions, his 2004 note about toolkits is right (
https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html). And I might be wrong but I
think it applies directly to MATE and xfce4-screensaver
> I sought to make this project after shipping light-locker in Xubuntu for
> years. For hardware that supports VT swiching effectively, light-locker has
> been great and served us well. For hardware that does not VT switch well,
> users are getting locked out of their desktop and losing their work. Since
> the VT switch is basically how light-locker functions, this is not
> something that can be easily remedied and is pretty much dependent on the
> kernel and graphics drivers.

But I think it's worth poking graphics drivers people (whether in kernel or
the DDX). The light-locker architecture is very sound and secure for that: the
locker attack surface is quite minimal (although it would be nice to do some
pentesting on the DBus interface, maybe). It might need some ironing here and
there, and some fixes to go with LightDM, but still.
> There's been a lot of interest already, and there are packages available
> across several other distributions. This by no means that it should be
> included in Debian, but there is a strong possibility that we will have it
> packaged in Ubuntu.

As I said in my previous mail, I'm not against it per-se, but I don't think
it's the number one priority for Xfce packages in Debian right now, and that
means some commitment.

- -- 


Reply to: