I've tried to work around this issue with "ugly hacks" , but this is quite annoying using netbooks an notebooks... Interaction between power manager and xscreensaver is quite difficult, since: 1) xfce power manager does not lock screen "when idle" like xscreensaver 2) disabling display management from xfpm, xscreensaver doesn't deal with different timeouts when on AC or on battery 3) locking on suspend/hibernate is set from different menus (if you manually suspend or if xfpm does it) and could confuse users Using light locker there is even more "overlapping" of functions, but maybe this is not related to xfpm. My proposal is (just my 2 cents): under display management, adding also "Lock after X minutes" before "put display to sleep after ..."
If you're using light-locker-settings then there is a duplication of settings with xfpm, but those options are being synced with xfpm. 1) xfpm itself doesn't handle timed locking, light-locker itself does. It listens to the signal the xserver sends when the display goes blank or into standby. Consequently this is how you can configure the timeout. Adding timed locking in xfpm isn't a planned feature and as most screensavers/lockers have these timers built in it doesn't seem to make sense. you can also use xfce4-power-manager alongside xscreensaver, but note that xscreensaver uses its own blank/dpms times, not the standard xserver ones, so it can't be synced with xfpm properly/easily. 2) Yeah, that is true, xscreensaver doesn't make that distinction. Not sure where you're going with that though. It obviously isn't xfpm's fault. 3) It's fairly tricky to group these options sensibly and we spent a long time trying to come up with a good way of presenting them. However, despite our many discussions, I acknowledge there might be shortcomings, but I'd say there are less than with all the alternatives we considered. (Sort of a "best of possible dialogs".) Either way, Xubuntu will ship xfce4-power-manager with the light-locker settings integrated in a separate "Security" tab which houses all locking options.
As explained above I don't see a bug there.