Am 13.10.2011 21:09, schrieb Martin Gräßlin:
On Thursday 13 October 2011 20:49:29 Matthias Fuchs wrote:
I understand and agree to the technical reasons against keeping the
current architecture but that does not mean that I agree to all the
other arguments.
I just want to point out once more tha
On Thursday 13 October 2011 20:49:29 Matthias Fuchs wrote:
> I understand and agree to the technical reasons against keeping the
> current architecture but that does not mean that I agree to all the
> other arguments.
I just want to point out once more that we will not remove anything which is
pos
Am 13.10.2011 20:21, schrieb Thomas Lübking:
[...] it now had the chance to save a lot of energy AND the
screen by simply turning the screen off, since nobody is watching.
> [...]
So the only sane reason these things to show up "automatically" is that
the system is abandoned and than it's no mo
Am Wed, 12 Oct 2011 16:37:41 -0400
schrieb Michael Pyne :
> Sure it can. Just click "Test" in the Display & Monitor screen saver
> options. ;) There's probably some DBus call to do the same thing.
i thought about "kstart --fullscreen kdeasciiquarium", fails because
the window us resized externally
Am Thu, 13 Oct 2011 18:24:55 +0200
schrieb todd rme :
> At least for me wobbly windows provides visual feedback when moving
> windows that I find useful. I used it a lot on compiz, but the Kwin
> one never really worked all that well but I would have it enabled if
> it did.
Try advanced mode, the
On Thu, Oct 13, 2011 at 5:29 PM, Martin Koller wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
>
>> > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and
>> > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value.
>> I have to disagree. By defau
On Thursday 13 October 2011 17:29:16 Martin Koller wrote:
> On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and
> > > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value.
> >
> > I have to disagree.
On Tuesday, 11. October 2011 21:11:03 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > I consider most effects being "bling" yes, with that said I like it and
> > appreciate it but still most effects add no real productive value.
> I have to disagree. By default we ship no effect which is "bling"
> only. They all add p
On Wednesday, 12. October 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote:
Let me give my view here:
> Do you have configured a "saver" beyond dpms?
> And if, why?
> Do you use a locker beyond a black screen?
> And if, why?
yes to both (diashow).
Reason: make other people wandering by (or sitting in the
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 20:43:41 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:46:40 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne :
> > Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for
> > that in kdeartwork someday... ;)
>
> Errr... rather not. The author, *cough* who ever he might be *
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 21:46:40 -0400
schrieb Michael Pyne :
> Yes. KDE asciiquarium (feel free to look at the copyright headers for
> that in kdeartwork someday... ;)
Errr... rather not. The author, *cough* who ever he might be *cough*
has apparently so far not found the time to implement the resize
On Wednesday 12 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200
> > >
> > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > > > Screensaver is bling only
> > >
> > >
On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200
> >
> > schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > > Screensaver is bling only
> >
> > No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a
> > soft
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200
>
> schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > Screensaver is bling only
>
> No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a
> software relic.
(Semantics)
> The key aspect is "when and why is there eye-
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 21.11.03 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:12:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
[...]
> > But you also said that the screensaver without locking was going away in
> > 4.9. This is what I'm against.
>
> As Thomas wrote you will always be able to run any animatio
On Wednesday, October 12, 2011 02:12:55 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400 schrieb Michael Pyne :
> > On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > > BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system
> > > is idle is simply not a justifiabl
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 17:47:52 -0400
schrieb Michael Pyne :
> On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> > BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system
> > is idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore)
>
> With all due respect, and with full agreement that s
On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is
> idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore)
With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in
general required to *protect the screen*... w
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20:12:39 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.52.36 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote:
> > > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200
> > > >
> > > > schrieb T
Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200
schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> Screensaver is bling only
No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a
software relic.
The key aspect is "when and why is there eye-candy".
You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just
ordinary single
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 19.52.36 Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote:
> > > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200
> > >
> > > schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 18:02:32 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote:
> > Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200
> >
> > schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with
> > > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild
On Tuesday 11 October 2011 15.55.15 you wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 15:33:39 +0200
>
> schrieb Torgny Nyblom :
> > Does this mean that I will be focred to use a screensaver with
> > password unlock? If so why is that not a vaild usecase? It's what I
> > use at home all the time.
>
> "Why that?"
23 matches
Mail list logo
