I like this idea.
I'm not sure if a screensaver like this exists - but how about including
a slideshow screensaver, one that cycles through images in a directory
with some nice transitional effects [don't ask me to program this though
hehe]. Since this probably won't eat much cpu at all, it would make a
very nice choice for the screensavers-base package.
On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 22:20, Mike Fedyk wrote:
Ray Strode wrote:
>On Wed, 2004-07-14 at 21:27 -0300, Steven Garrity wrote:
>
>
>>So, as this thread illustrates, there are plenty of opinions on the
>>screensavers.
>>
>>Perhaps someone with the authority/ability can make a call on this based
>>on the various options floated on this thread and go ahead with it.
>>
>>
>So what I'm going to end up doing is making the base xscreensaver
>package have a small number of screensavers, and then have an additional
>package for the more fancy ones.
>
How about a four way split (feel free to come up with better names)?
screensavers-base
screensavers-3d
screensavers-pretty (all judged to be better than the ones in misc)
screensavers-misc (all of the ones you'd love to leave out completely)
Now let's nominate some screensavers that are not resource intensive
(ie, not 3d and don't take up more than say 25% CPU on a computer 3-4
years old) and pleasing to the eye to make a list totaling 10 or less.
I can think of some now, but can't think of their name right now.
So, what say you?