Brian J. Tarricone bjt23 at
Wed Dec 3 20:39:07 CET 2008

Kok, Auke wrote:

> I wouldn't even bother and replace xscreensaver alltogether with an Xfce screen
> locking program that uses gtk2 and is driven by xfwm4 (after all, xfwm4 knows when
> the user is no longer active best of all).

That's an excessively poor idea.  A screen locker is a 
security-sensitive program.  Assuming that gtk will never crash is 
foolish.  Please see:

xfwm4 doesn't know any more about user idleness than xscreensaver (or 
the X screensaver extension) does.

> xscreensaver is maybe fancy and relatively up to date, but it's a dinosaur in size
> and fails at doing the basics (dpms) right, and it does not integrate.


1)  It's not a dinosaur.  It's very very tiny (if you're going to 
compare binary size, certainly smaller than xlock/xlockmore!).  The 
various display mode hacks may not all be tiny, but they're completely 
optional.  xscreensaver will work just fine without them (they're all 
standalone apps).

2) xscreensaver sets up DPMS just fine.  Not sure where you've gotten 
the idea it doesn't.  If it's not working for you, probably your video 
driver is broken with regard to the X DPMS extension.

3) How does it "not integrate"?  It can be launched just fine via 
xinitrc or the xdg autostart mechanism, and comes with a nice gtk2 GUI 
for configuring it.  There's even a compile-time option to add a "New 
Login" button to the enter-password dialog that runs gdmflexiserver 
(which I imagine could be changed to run whatever you want).


More information about the Xfce mailing list