Date: Wed, 4 Nov 1998 18:28:06 +0000 (GMT) From: Terry Lambert <tlambert@primenet.com> To: doconnor@gsoft.com.au (Daniel O'Connor) Cc: yokota@zodiac.mech.utsunomiya-u.ac.jp, hackers@FreeBSD.ORG, karpen@ocean.campus.luth.se Subject: Re: kld screensavers Message-ID: <199811041828.LAA09234@usr07.primenet.com> In-Reply-To: <XFMail.981104111153.doconnor@gsoft.com.au> from "Daniel O'Connor" at Nov 4, 98 11:11:53 am
next in thread | previous in thread | raw e-mail | index | archive | help
> > I am not sure if we want to have this kind of screen saver stack. It > > will complicate things a lot: multiple saver module management, > > priority management, flag checking... Is this worth the effort? > > It depends how complicated it is to implement. > > If it works, then hooray, but if its too hard, then a 'normal' system would be > OK.. > > Besides which, its a neat idea, and would give a good example of code > for other people to use :) I personally prefer that code that was posted about on the news group back in 1995, and was available only directly from the author, that would run AfterDark(tm) modules on top of FreeBSD/Linux. I still have an old 486 system that runs the "Spock and the Horta" screen saver. If you are going to design a new screen saver framework, you could do worse than to be ABI compatible with Windows 95. Terry Lambert terry@lambert.org --- Any opinions in this posting are my own and not those of my present or previous employers. To Unsubscribe: send mail to majordomo@FreeBSD.org with "unsubscribe freebsd-hackers" in the body of the message
Want to link to this message? Use this URL: <https://mail-archive.FreeBSD.org/cgi/mid.cgi?199811041828.LAA09234>