3 ms·

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 work

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