3 ms·

A relevant protocol (https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1 https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1) has been introduced nearly two years a

A relevant protocol (https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1 https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1) has been introduced nearly two years ago.

franga2000 3y ago
This looks a lot more like a lock screen than a screensaver. A screensaver could be implemented using this API, but it would replace the DE-native lock screen and need to implement everything it used to do.
- aidenn0 3y ago
  Xscreensaver is both a lock-screen and a screensaver, so for jwz, that should be fine. [edit] It is missing what jwz calls the "blank" state (i.e. screensaver showing, but no password required to unlock).
sillywalk 3y ago
I quote jwz's reply: >Well, ext-session-lock-v1 is itself a non-starter. There is no sane reason to perpetuate the old model where screen savers have to read passwords and talk to PAM. Authentication belongs in the display manager. It's already there since they have already implemented screen locking. Not using that same code path would be madness.
- gizmo686 3y ago
  So, it is less that "Wayland does not support screensavers", and more of "Wayland supports screensavers that work like they did under X. But the way things worked under X is so stupid that it is not worth considering".
  - deleted 3y ago
    [deleted]
  - sillywalk 3y ago
    Not knowing anything about Wayland, I feel more than qualified to respond. :) Under X11, a screen locker wasn't 'secure' in the same way as a login manager. If the screen-locker/screen saver crashed, the user is still logged on. If the login-manager crashes, nobody is logged on, and it probably just restarts. [0] I think the jist of the article on jwz I linked is that, under X11 anybody can write a screen saver, it doesn't matter what window manager. Under Wayland, the logic of when to start & make secure a screensaver (as opposed to screen lock) would be in in the display-manager or compositer, and there isn't just one of those, and attempting to get all of them to get together and standardize it would be a PITA. [0] https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html [1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/09/wayland-and-screen-savers/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/09/wayland-and-screen-savers/ [2] https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/man1.html#2 https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/man1.html#2

A relevant protocol (https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1 https://wayland.app/protocols/ext-session-lock-v1) has been introduced nearly two years ago.

franga2000 3y ago

This looks a lot more like a lock screen than a screensaver. A screensaver could be implemented using this API, but it would replace the DE-native lock screen and need to implement everything it used to do.

aidenn0 3y ago
Xscreensaver is both a lock-screen and a screensaver, so for jwz, that should be fine. [edit] It is missing what jwz calls the "blank" state (i.e. screensaver showing, but no password required to unlock).

sillywalk 3y ago

I quote jwz's reply: >Well, ext-session-lock-v1 is itself a non-starter. There is no sane reason to perpetuate the old model where screen savers have to read passwords and talk to PAM. Authentication belongs in the display manager. It's already there since they have already implemented screen locking. Not using that same code path would be madness.

gizmo686 3y ago
So, it is less that "Wayland does not support screensavers", and more of "Wayland supports screensavers that work like they did under X. But the way things worked under X is so stupid that it is not worth considering".
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]
- sillywalk 3y ago
  Not knowing anything about Wayland, I feel more than qualified to respond. :) Under X11, a screen locker wasn't 'secure' in the same way as a login manager. If the screen-locker/screen saver crashed, the user is still logged on. If the login-manager crashes, nobody is logged on, and it probably just restarts. [0] I think the jist of the article on jwz I linked is that, under X11 anybody can write a screen saver, it doesn't matter what window manager. Under Wayland, the logic of when to start & make secure a screensaver (as opposed to screen lock) would be in in the display-manager or compositer, and there isn't just one of those, and attempting to get all of them to get together and standardize it would be a PITA. [0] https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/toolkits.html [1] https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/09/wayland-and-screen-savers/ https://www.jwz.org/blog/2023/09/wayland-and-screen-savers/ [2] https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/man1.html#2 https://www.jwz.org/xscreensaver/man1.html#2