Comment by KetoManx64
15 hours ago
One of the great strengths of Linux, and one of the things that draws new people in, is the custizability and making the system your own to whatever degree you want. That a "modern" display manager doesn't let you have a screensaver and people try to cover up for it with "you're just trying to use your system wrong. Be normal and use your system like we say is normal" is embarassing.
I think that's a little dramatic. Screen savers originally served a purpose, and it's not unreasonable to be unaware that some people see them are customization.
If you think it's embarrassing, you're welcome to contribute a working implementation or pay someone else to do it. Otherwise, I don't see how it's embarrassing.
What modern display manager doesn't let you? In KDE the screensaver is merged into the screen locker settings, you can pick any "wallpaper plugin" which includes slideshows, video, or animation if you plug in e.g. https://store.kde.org/p/2143912 or https://store.kde.org/p/2194089
Some hardcore Greenpeace types might argue that this is a special case where such a person is literally using their system "wrong" — as in unethically. In the sense that they are deliberately wasting [i.e. "turning into waste heat"] a nontrivial amount of power, by keeping however-many monitors they use always powered on, never allowing any of them to enter sleep.
It's a sort of attitude that isn't really that problematic when one person does it; but becomes problematic if it becomes a popular thing to do.
Anyone here who lived through the 1990s might remember that the ENERGY STAR certification initiative — that today measures all sorts of things — began specifically to grade computer monitors on their ability to be put into a low-power sleep state by software control.
Everyone back then loved the computer personalization aspect of screensavers — I had After Dark installed myself! — and what resulted was an energy-waste tragedy-of-the-commons of a large-enough scale that the EPA had to get involved.