Lubomir Sedlacik wrote:
> On Fri, Apr 14, 2006 at 01:05:29PM -0700, walt wrote:

>> Not only does xscreensaver suck up valuable CPU cycles, it
>> deliberately disables DPMS so that my monitor stays on all
>> night just so it can support the parasitic activity of
>> xscreensaver.
>>
>> I say it is time to acknowledge that screensavers have been
>> made obsolete by (much) better technology, and move them to
>> the world of entertainment, i.e. pkgsrc/games.
>>
>> I welcome any contrary opions.

> if you don't like it, don't use it. 

I certainly don't, but I'm tired of re-compiling useless code
countless times just so I can delete it afterwards.

> they provide a useful function, to lock your unattended session.

Aha!  I don't have any quarrel whatever with this purpose, but
it absolutely is not the same function provided by a screensaver.

>  i don't know about you but i just don't
> feel comfortable leaving my computers unattended with unlocked X
> sessions, ever.  (althought i personally prefer "xlock -mode blank").

I would prefer it also.  Why does that function require xscreensaver?

IMO, security and power-saving functions should be separated -- they
are absolutely different.