----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
@MSGID: <87edjt6uhc.fsf@yahoo.com> 7f216ac4
@REPLY: <20230817000928.951@kylheku.com> 26757e61
@REPLYADDR Po Lu <luangruo@yahoo.com>
@REPLYTO 2:5075/128 Po Lu
@CHRS: CP866 2
@RFC: 1 0
@RFC-Message-ID: <87edjt6uhc.fsf@yahoo.com>
@RFC-References: 1@dont-email.me>
1@dont-email.me>1@dont-email.me> 2@dont-email.me>1@dont-email.me>
<kq60E9OQdnWzYNhjP@bongo-ra.co>1@dont-email.me> <87ttsyguk2.fsf@yahoo.com><20230817000928.951@kylheku.com>
@TZUTC: 0800
@PID: Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
@TID: FIDOGATE-5.12-ge4e8b94
Kaz Kylheku <
864-117-4973@kylheku.com> writes:
> Devil`s advocacy time.
>
> The purpose of a screensaver is to save the screen against burn-in; i.e.
> protect the hardware from damage.
>
> That hardware is attachd to the machine which runs the X server, so
> it makes sense for the X server to be responsible for that.
>
> Why should the server trust remote clients to protect local hardware?
If that were genuinely the impetus for the design of the core
screen-saver requests (and its outgrowth, the MIT screen saver
extension), then the X server wouldn`t trust any other clients with any
graphics requests and whatnot...
Particularly given that any client can ``save`` a screen absent even the
permission to create or map windows, by drawing to the root window with
a GC whose subwindow mode is set to IncludeInferiors.
--- Gnus/5.13 (Gnus v5.13)
* Origin: A noiseless patient Spider (2:5075/128)
SEEN-BY: 5001/100 5005/49 5010/352 5015/255 5019/40
5020/715 848 1042 4441
SEEN-BY: 5020/12000 5030/49 1081 5075/128
@PATH: 5075/128 5020/1042 4441