Xfce Forum

KitchM

Member

Registered: 2009-08-15

Posts: 304

Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

Does anyone know how to disable screen blanking?  Nothing seems to turn it off.  A screen saver would be nice, but it simply blanks instead.  Power management is not running and it still blanks.

Thanks.

s0ulslack

Member

From: Idaho

Registered: 2005-12-25

Posts: 291

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

KitchM,

Its probably DPMS Settings, you can disable/set with "xset dpms 0 0 600". First var after dpms is the time before going into Standby, 2nd Suspend and 3rd finally Off.  You can poke over the xset man page for more help

grep -i dpms /var/log/Xorg.0.log
(II) Loading extension DPMS
(II) R128(0): DPMS capabilities: StandBy Suspend Off; RGB/Color Display
(**) R128(0): DPMS enabled

ManOfSteel

Member

Registered: 2005-10-06

Posts: 104

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

And an alternative way of doing it is to add the following to xorg.conf:

Section "ServerFlags"
    Option "BlankTime" "0"
    Option "StandbyTime" "0"
    Option "SuspendTime" "0"
    Option "OffTime" "0"
EndSection

KitchM

Member

Registered: 2009-08-15

Posts: 304

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

Thanks everyone, but I'm having a problem with something here.  If one is using a Desktop Environment, isn't it reasonable to expect that one can remain within the DE to get everything done?  In particular, aren't the utilities of the DE to be expected to provide the means to configure the computer?

I wouldn't go to the DOS prompt to set my Windows' screensaver, so why should I go to the CLI to set that here?  Worse yet, why should one be forced to interface with another part of the computer software?  The whole point of the DE is so I don't have to fool around with the X environment.

Maybe I'm just expecting too much (but I don't think so).  I hope someone can explain things for me.

ManOfSteel

Member

Registered: 2005-10-06

Posts: 104

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

If one is using a Desktop Environment, isn't it reasonable to expect that one can remain within the DE to get everything done

Get KDE or GNOME, or better yet switch to Windows. Really!

I wouldn't go to the DOS prompt to set my Windows' screensaver, so why should I go to the CLI to set that here?

First of all, these are not screensaver settings, but DPMS (i.e. monitor/graphic card, i.e. hardware) settings.
Don't start comparing fundamentally different operating systems. There's absolutely no point, no use, no gain.
Besides, "DOS" has been dead for more than a decade. That's not "DOS" you use when you open a Command Prompt. It's some sort of terminal emulator... nothing more than a single program. Modern Windows system (NT family) are single tightly integrated systems.
Have you ever used Windows in the time when it was based on MS-DOS (e.g. Windows 3.x)? Well, all installations had to be done under MS-DOS and many system-wide settings had to be changed there too.

Worse yet, why should one be forced to interface with another part of the computer software?

Because in UNIX-like systems, every part is separate from the others. The base system is one part. The X Window System (e.g. Xorg) is another. The window manager or desktop environment is a third. Other user programs are a fourth.
In GNU/Linux systems, it's even more radical since you have the Linux kernel with hundreds of third-party GNU applications around it.

The whole point of the DE is so I don't have to fool around with the X environment.

I'm not aware of such a "definition" of a DE. A DE is nothing more than a WM bundled with one combination or another of useful desktop applications (panel, tray bar, settings editor, file manager, text editor, etc.)

Snood

Member

Registered: 2009-05-02

Posts: 56

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

A desktop environment doesn't really have to be graphical at all -- at least not graphical in the sense that you seem to mean.

In the Windows world you have basically one desktop environment choice, though the environment is fairly highly customizable. In GNU/Linux you can choose from a bewildering array of desktop environments. Some are very Windows-like (KDE / GNOME) in that they try to present a GUI applet for controlling almost every function you can think of. Xfce is somewhat "lighter" than KDE and GNOME. There are DEs that are much lighter than Xfce, too. The lighter the DE the more command line interface time you may expect to see. Heck, some people run desktop Linux or BSD without the use of GUIs for most things. They probably don't spend a lot of time at YouTube, but the systems still fill the needs they have. To tell you the truth, there are times when I use the elinks or w3m textual Internet browsers instead of Iceweasel (Debian version of Firefox) because there are some forums I frequent that have appalingly garish color schemes, and it's a lot easier for me to tolerate reading message threads on those forums if I'm in a terminal window than if I'm trying to pick out orange text against a green background.

Even in a DE where the intention is to provide a comprehensive set of GUI apps for every need you occasionally run into the need to do some things from a terminal or command line interface. I admin Windows Active Directory domains for a living, and I spend a lot of time at the CLI because I can be much more precise in specifying exactly how I want something done with a typed command.

It's also true that, even if the devs working on a particular DE actually want to provide GUI controls for all facets of the system, there are always limits on the developers' time. An examination of the history of development of DEs in Linux shows that GUIs are first developed for the most commonly used functions. How often does one change DPMS settings?

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a huge number of choices in DE (and practically every other function) available to you in GNU/Linux. Given a little time and patience and research you should be able to find a distro / DE combination (or customize one yourself) that fits you to a T. Maybe Xfce isn't for you, or maybe a little reading of man files and some online research will make you so comfortable with it you'll wind up liking it better than any other environment you've seen. It's up to you, but you will be very disappointed if you expect the devs of all DEs to be aiming for the same goal of wall-to-wall GUI control of everything. The reason there are so many different distros and DEs and WMs in Linux is because different folks have different preferences.

Wapush

Member

Registered: 2006-12-14

Posts: 140

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

Thanks everyone, but I'm having a problem with something here.  If one is using a Desktop Environment, isn't it reasonable to expect that one can remain within the DE to get everything done?  In particular, aren't the utilities of the DE to be expected to provide the means to configure the computer?

I wouldn't go to the DOS prompt to set my Windows' screensaver, so why should I go to the CLI to set that here?  Worse yet, why should one be forced to interface with another part of the computer software?  The whole point of the DE is so I don't have to fool around with the X environment.

Maybe I'm just expecting too much (but I don't think so).  I hope someone can explain things for me.

There is already XScreenSaver, a Desktop Environment independent GTK+ 2.0 screensaver usable on all DE. No need to re-invent the wheel...

---

Xfce on identi.ca
Thunar on identi.ca

KitchM

Member

Registered: 2009-08-15

Posts: 304

Re: Disable Screen Blanking (Resolved)

Thanks everyone for your efforts, but I'm pretty much past all that.  Let me help you catch up.

Get KDE or GNOME, or better yet switch to Windows. Really!

I really don't like the Windows OS; that's why I use Linux.  That's usually implied by using it and being involved in the development of the product and associated parts, such as in this forum.  In any case, I must assume your answer should have been "No" or "I don't know".

First of all, these are not screensaver settings, but DPMS (i.e. monitor/graphic card, i.e. hardware) settings.

Actually, the only reason there is a blanking feature is either to act as a screen saver or to save power or both.  There is no other reason.

Don't start comparing fundamentally different operating systems. There's absolutely no point, no use, no gain.

Again, people compare operating systems all the time.  IMHO it is very close to censorship to tell others to not do comparisons, especially when that is the method one uses to develop good consumership.  There is huge gain in comparing products.

Besides, "DOS" has been dead for more than a decade.

Simply not true.

That's not "DOS" you use when you open a Command Prompt. It's some sort of terminal emulator... nothing more than a single program.

Again, not true.  That's why it is labeled "DOS Prompt" in the menu.

Modern Windows system (NT family) are single tightly integrated systems.

Many people would argue against your position that anything Microsoft is "tightly integrated".

Have you ever used Windows in the time when it was based on MS-DOS (e.g. Windows 3.x)? Well, all installations had to be done under MS-DOS and many system-wide settings had to be changed there too.

The answer to the first sentence is yes.  The second sentence is incorrect as it applies to the subject of this post.

Because in UNIX-like systems, every part is separate from the others. The base system is one part. The X Window System (e.g. Xorg) is another. The window manager or desktop environment is a third. Other user programs are a fourth.
In GNU/Linux systems, it's even more radical since you have the Linux kernel with hundreds of third-party GNU applications around it.

Actually the window manger and desktop environment are third and/or fourth.

I'm not aware of such a "definition" of a DE. A DE is nothing more than a WM bundled with one combination or another of useful desktop applications (panel, tray bar, settings editor, file manager, text editor, etc.)

Yours is another definition.

Okay......(deep breath)

A desktop environment doesn't really have to be graphical at all -- at least not graphical in the sense that you seem to mean.

Yes, of course.  I agree.

In the Windows world you have basically one desktop environment choice, though the environment is fairly highly customizable. In GNU/Linux you can choose from a bewildering array of desktop environments. Some are very Windows-like (KDE / GNOME) in that they try to present a GUI applet for controlling almost every function you can think of. Xfce is somewhat "lighter" than KDE and GNOME. There are DEs that are much lighter than Xfce, too. The lighter the DE the more command line interface time you may expect to see. Heck, some people run desktop Linux or BSD without the use of GUIs for most things. They probably don't spend a lot of time at YouTube, but the systems still fill the needs they have. To tell you the truth, there are times when I use the elinks or w3m textual Internet browsers instead of Iceweasel (Debian version of Firefox) because there are some forums I frequent that have appalingly garish color schemes, and it's a lot easier for me to tolerate reading message threads on those forums if I'm in a terminal window than if I'm trying to pick out orange text against a green background.

That is true.

Even in a DE where the intention is to provide a comprehensive set of GUI apps for every need you occasionally run into the need to do some things from a terminal or command line interface. I admin Windows Active Directory domains for a living, and I spend a lot of time at the CLI because I can be much more precise in specifying exactly how I want something done with a typed command.

It's also true that, even if the devs working on a particular DE actually want to provide GUI controls for all facets of the system, there are always limits on the developers' time. An examination of the history of development of DEs in Linux shows that GUIs are first developed for the most commonly used functions. How often does one change DPMS settings?

The point I'm trying to make is that you have a huge number of choices in DE (and practically every other function) available to you in GNU/Linux. Given a little time and patience and research you should be able to find a distro / DE combination (or customize one yourself) that fits you to a T. Maybe Xfce isn't for you, or maybe a little reading of man files and some online research will make you so comfortable with it you'll wind up liking it better than any other environment you've seen. It's up to you, but you will be very disappointed if you expect the devs of all DEs to be aiming for the same goal of wall-to-wall GUI control of everything. The reason there are so many different distros and DEs and WMs in Linux is because different folks have different preferences.

All true as well.  And thank you for the thoughtful response.

There is already XScreenSaver, a Desktop Environment independent GTK+ 2.0 screensaver usable on all DE. No need to re-invent the wheel...

Yes, I believe this is the real point of confusion.  In Xfce there is something called "Xfce Power Manager".  In that applet one is lead to believe that it can control the blanking of the screen.  But the time settings don't seem to work properly.  As I stated earlier, the blanking of the screen is used as a screen saving function, and I figured that would be good enough.  But I went ahead and installed the xscreensaver, and I look forward to seeing how it works.  At least it appears under the settings menu where it belongs.  Damn handy program, that.  It has a lot of good settings choices, and I believe it will do the job.  Thanks for the tip.

It is good to know that my assumption was correct; one does not have to use the CLI for configuring the screensaver.  Xfce just didn't bundle xscreensaver with its DE and it must be added manually.  It makes a very good GUI for the job.  So far, I recommend it as the only available solution right now.