On 27/07/16 15:24, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Ikey Doherty
> mailto:michael.i.dohe...@intel.com>> wrote:
>
> > For long time I already want/plan to merge gnome-screensaver into
> > gnome-flashback. It will give more fre
On Wed, Jul 27, 2016 at 5:05 PM, Ikey Doherty
wrote:
> > For long time I already want/plan to merge gnome-screensaver into
> > gnome-flashback. It will give more freedom to make needed changes
> > without affecting any other users and/or sessions that still use
> > gnome
le Bassi
> wrote:
> >> Hi;
> >>
> >> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty <mailto:michael.i.dohe...@intel.com>>
> >> wrote:
> >>> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
> >>> concern
> &g
On Wed, 2016-07-27 at 16:55 +0300, Alberts Muktupāvels wrote:
> For long time I already want/plan to merge gnome-screensaver into
> gnome-flashback. It will give more freedom to make needed changes
> without affecting any other users and/or sessions that still use
> gnome-screensaver.
> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
> >>> concern
> >>> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
> >>> forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work
> >>> better for Bu
On 21/07/16 14:27, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
>> Hi;
>>
>> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty
>> wrote:
>>> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
>>> concern
>>
On 21/07/16 14:12, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> Hi;
>
> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty
wrote:
>> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern
>> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
>> forking GNOME Screensav
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:12 +0100, Emmanuele Bassi wrote:
> Hi;
>
> On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty
> wrote:
> > So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
> > concern
> > with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 14:20 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
>
> On 21/07/16 14:03, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> > On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> > > Hi all,
> > >
> > > So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express
> >
On 21/07/16 14:03, Bastien Nocera wrote:
> On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
>> Hi all,
>>
>> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern
>> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
>> for
On Thu, 2016-07-21 at 13:42 +0100, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> Hi all,
>
> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern
> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
> forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work
>
Hi;
On 21 July 2016 at 13:42, Ikey Doherty wrote:
> So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern
> with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
> forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work
> better for Budgie/
Hi all,
So Jeremy Bicha kindly contacted me the other day to express concern
with Budgie/GNOME Screensaver. I had been toying with the notion of
forking GNOME Screensaver due to its deadness, and making it work
better for Budgie/Modern GNOME integration.
Jeremy correctly pointed out it might be
> would like take over maintainership of these modules.
I've reassigned or closed all the bugs in the GNOME Bugzilla for
gnome-screensaver, and it was closed for new bugs as well. Given the
number of bugs that thought gnome-screensaver handled the screensaver in
newer versions of GNOME, yo
Hi,
last releases for these modules are two years old. These modules are no
longer used in GNOME, right?
Modules are still used in unofficial GNOME Flashback session so I would
like take over maintainership of these modules.
I sent mail to current maintainers of notification-daemon one week ago.
Hey,
After triaging all the open gnome-screensaver bugs, we closed
gnome-screensaver
for new bugs[1]. gnome-screensaver is not used in GNOME at all since
GNOME 3.8, and
isn't used in recent versions of Unity either.
Users should still be able to get help about it from their distributors.
C
On Thu, 2011-12-15 at 14:49 +0800, Sam Spilsbury wrote:
> Hey All,
>
> I was thinking about what to do about the long-standing issue that
> spans pretty much every desktop about how to handle conflicting grabs
> between a menu, or a workspace switcher (in the case of Unity/Compiz |
> GNOME-Shell)
Hey All,
I was thinking about what to do about the long-standing issue that
spans pretty much every desktop about how to handle conflicting grabs
between a menu, or a workspace switcher (in the case of Unity/Compiz |
GNOME-Shell) and the screensaver. At the moment, because the
screensaver is unabl
Dear Developers,
I have a brainstorm for Gnome :
"gnome-screensaver integrating to new panel of
gnome-appearance-properties"
http://brainstorm.ubuntu.com/idea/24574/
If you donate this idea, please vote up.
Best regards, Sevoir
Norbert
gnome-screensaver branched for 2.24.
Thanks,
Jon
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
Hi,
I have branched gnome-screensaver. The stable branch is gnome-2-22 and
development continues on trunk.
Jon
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listinfo/desktop-devel-list
thanks DL updated
cheers,
El dc 12 de 12 del 2007 a les 16:51 -0500, en/na William Jon McCann va
escriure:
> Hi,
>
> I have branched nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-screensaver. The stable branch is
> gnome-2-20 and "development" contin
Hi,
I have branched nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-screensaver. The stable branch is
gnome-2-20 and "development" continues on trunk.
Jon
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/listin
same time.
>
> It could be beagle which try to index as much files as possible when
> screensaver is active. You'll have to check.
>
beagle is not installed.
Adam
--
View this message in context:
http://www.nabble.com/Re%3A-gnome-screensaver-photo-slideshow-CPU-usage-tf
Le lundi 28 mai 2007 à 09:26 -0700, ajkessel a écrit :
> The photo slideshow screensaver in gnome-screensaver puts such a load on my
> laptop's CPU that the fan runs constantly and tasks such as music playing
> with totem become very choppy. Although it's an older laptop
The photo slideshow screensaver in gnome-screensaver puts such a load on my
laptop's CPU that the fan runs constantly and tasks such as music playing
with totem become very choppy. Although it's an older laptop, I would hope
it wouldn't be viewed as totally obsolete: it's a
Hello,
I have branched nautilus-cd-burner and gnome-screensaver. The stable branch is
gnome-2-18 and development continues on HEAD.
No specific plans at the moment.
Jon
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http
Hello,I have branched gnome-screensaver. The stable branch isgnome-2-16 and development continues on HEAD.Plans include:* Adding a power management baseline timeout
* Doing less polling* Try to standardize theme format (bug #354811)* Interacting with ConsoleKit
Hello,
I have branched gnome-screensaver. The stable branch is
gnome-2-14 and development continues on HEAD.
Plans include:
* Add refcounting to Inhibit DBUS API (bug #334907)
* Removing themes from the list (bug #316462)
* Add XEVIE support (bug #337203)
* Full
Weitergeleitete Nachricht
> Von: Wouter Stomp <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> An: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
> Betreff: Re: Gnome Screensaver issues?
> Datum: Tue, 21 Feb 2006 23:03:39 +0100
>
> On 2/21/06, Diamond Software <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > I&#x
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:56 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 22:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > > - power monitors down after ... (we should interact with g-p-m if it is
> > > available, else handle it directly)
> >
Le vendredi 17 février 2006 à 09:11 -0500, Dan Winship a écrit :
> > It's foolish to imagine that being in the desktop release set is
> > essential. But it's also foolish to ignore the big benefits to focusing
> > our efforts (in a synchronized way) on particular implementations of the
> > features
> > My list in the GEP includes all this and more ;)
>
> yeah, I think your list + some "evaluation team" scrutiny could work much
> better than looking for complete consensus on the mailing list.
That evaluation team *is* the release team. But the release team doesn't
make decisions independent
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 08:46:11AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:52 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > If this is what
> > Redhat thinks of the work done
>
> I thought it was obvious, but I'd like to point out that I'm not
> speaking on behalf of Red Hat on this matter.
It
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 10:58 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> it was just an example
>
> > * Does it conflict/compete/overlap with other software in the desktop
> > * Does it integrate with the desktop
> > * Is it good, interesting software
> > * Is this something that we think is important for a deskt
Hi,
I think our thinking historically has been that distro's who really care
about GNOME don't really 'care' that much about our list of stuff in the
desktop release as they have a pretty good idea themselves what they
want/don't want. Distro's which don't care much about GNOME on the other
hand mi
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:11 -0500, Dan Winship wrote:
> Murray Cumming wrote:
> > On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> >> - David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
> >> not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
> >> yet t
Murray Cumming wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
>> - David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
>> not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
>> yet there are lots of really rocking "Gnome" programs that are well
>
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 07:34 -0500, Luis Villa wrote:
> On 2/17/06, Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > > So, what
> > > > if we just set a list of things a module h
On 2/17/06, Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> > On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > > So, what
> > > if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get
> > > accepted and base our decisions
ely because gnome-power-manager is well integrated that we
> > are now having a discussion about whether gnome-screensaver should be
> > excluded from GNOME 2.14 simply because it is well integrated with
> > gnome-power-manager.
>
> So, my personal concern about gnome-powe
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 09:38 +0100, Alexander Larsson wrote:
> On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> > So, what
> > if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get
> > accepted and base our decisions on that?
> >
> > For instance, we could have:
> > * uses at
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:12 -0800, Alex Graveley wrote:
> *cough* tomboy *cough*
Tomboy is a great example. Its a great piece of software that does new
exciting things. If tomboy would be excluded from the desktop for some
technicality I would be very sad.
=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> For completeness, I should also note that there are two other big
> problems involved which I don't know how to solve on a short timescale
> (e.g. before 2.16):
> - Havoc's recent points about identifying our target audience is
> important
*cough* tomboy *cough*
;-)
-Alex
Alexander Larsson wrote:
In the end, what is interesting is not the technology used, but the user
experience of the desktop. In fact, I would rather put something in the
desktop that violated some technical rule, but was some amazing
innovation that really fit
one reason why we have the
> same discussions every release cycle.
>
> Let me address the primary concern that was given - lack of integration.
> It is precisely because gnome-power-manager is well integrated that we
> are now having a discussion about whether gnome-screensaver should be
On Fri, 2006-02-17 at 01:41 +0100, Rodrigo Moya wrote:
> So, what
> if we just set a list of things a module has to conform with to get
> accepted and base our decisions on that?
>
> For instance, we could have:
> * uses at least basic platform libs (GTK mainly)
> * uses existing platform librarie
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 20:06 -0500, Bryan Clark wrote:
> Some proposed action items (from me):
>
> * HIG has no real notification area guidelines
>
> To me this doesn't mean g-p-m is doing anything wrong, just that
> we design / usability people are behind the game and need to get
we'd like to see a good integration work starting soon for 2.16.
This reason is a bit too vague and looking back over the thread, I can't
see real positions beyond this. I've made some notes from re-reading
the gnome-screensaver thread, not to point out anyone (and sorry to
tho
On 2/16/06, Rodrigo Moya <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> > On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > > Hi Vincent,
> > >
> > > Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
> > >
> > > > We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16.
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> > Hi Vincent,
> >
> > Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
> >
> > > We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of
> > > us agree that it didn't turn out well for t
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 13:33 -0700, Elijah Newren wrote:
> - David's recent point in this thread about the desktop release set
> not being so important also rings true to me. It's a binary in-or-out
> yet there are lots of really rocking "Gnome" programs that are well
> integrated but aren't in t
On 2/16/06, Danilo Šegan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hi Vincent,
>
> Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
>
> > We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of
> > us agree that it didn't turn out well for this cycle.
>
> Like: lets remove all desktop modules, and reevaluate t
Hi Vincent,
Today at 8:24, Vincent Untz wrote:
> We'll be trying something new for new modules in 2.16. I think most of
> us agree that it didn't turn out well for this cycle.
Like: lets remove all desktop modules, and reevaluate them again?
Not that it would bring any concrete results, but I'd
Today at 15:23, Dan Winship wrote:
> It doesn't contain an mp3 player, and for a long time
> didn't contain an email client. Etc, etc, etc.
We've got Totem, right? Not knowing if gstreamer is actually part of
desktop (I don't think it's part of the platform), that gives us at
least a half of the
On Thu, Feb 16, 2006 at 09:21:01AM -0500, David Zeuthen wrote:
> In fact I think GNOME and the software we call GNOME is great (otherwise
> I wouldn't even bother being on this list), and what's even more
> great... is the openness and willingness of the GNOME project, our
> community, to help con
d more of a "power" thing than "screensaver" thing. You can
configure monitor power down settings using gnome-power-preferences.
[...]
I see two solutions to this:
(1) solve the regression; or
(2) punt gnome-screensaver until gnome-power-manager can also be included
I person
Davyd Madeley wrote:
> Some of us
> care that the GNOME we ship and give out tarballs for is sane and cogent
> and makes sense by itself.
But it doesn't make sense by itself. GNOME doesn't contain a kernel, a C
library, or an X server. It only contains half of a printing
architecture (the half tha
being a drama queen :-)
> > So I don't really see your point, sorry, and what seriously worries me
> > is your rather silly suggestion about adding duplicate UI in
> > gnome-screensaver. Do you really want to add UI that is most likely to
> > go away in 2.16 if and whe
On Thu, 2006-02-16 at 14:52 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> If this is what
> Redhat thinks of the work done
I thought it was obvious, but I'd like to point out that I'm not
speaking on behalf of Red Hat on this matter.
David
___
desktop-devel-lis
> >> > was considered more of a "power" thing than "screensaver" thing. You
> > >> > can
> > >> > configure monitor power down settings using gnome-power-preferences.
[...]
> > I see two solutions to this:
> > (1)
hould consist of someone from Redhat and someone from Novell and
someone from Canonical and someone from Sun and whoever else wants to
buy themselves a seat at the table.
> So I don't really see your point, sorry, and what seriously worries me
> is your rather silly suggestion about adding
e trying to paint of our vendors is sad.. surely they
know what to do, this is hardly rocket science [1].
So I don't really see your point, sorry, and what seriously worries me
is your rather silly suggestion about adding duplicate UI in
gnome-screensaver. Do you really want to add UI that
gt; then we want to change to the link button (because it makes sense) as
> > that will confuse 2.14 users.
>
> Or perhaps we will not. We are however facing a serious regression now
> in which
> if a vendor decides to ship THE MODULES WE HAVE SAID "HERE, USE THESE", they
&g
THAT USED TO WORK PRETTY GOOD BEFORE I UPGRADED.
I see two solutions to this:
(1) solve the regression; or
(2) punt gnome-screensaver until gnome-power-manager can also be included
I personally think that (1) is the correct solution here, mostly
because I think
that monitor sleep time should b
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 23:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:56 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> > On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 22:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > > - power monitors down after ... (we should interact with g-p-m if it is
> > > available, else handle it directly)
> >
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 14:56 +, Richard Hughes wrote:
> On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 22:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > - power monitors down after ... (we should interact with g-p-m if it is
> > available, else handle it directly)
>
> This was moved to gnome-power-manager by Jon, as monitor DPMS
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 22:03 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> - power monitors down after ... (we should interact with g-p-m if it is
> available, else handle it directly)
This was moved to gnome-power-manager by Jon, as monitor DPMS control
was considered more of a "power" thing than "screensaver" t
On Seg, 2006-02-13 at 11:19 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 12:10 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> > with gnome-screensaver now.
> >
> > Having now used both of them, d
not).
I haven't actually tested gnome-screensaver properly in Xinerama
environments (xscreensaver will place a different hack on each screen)
so I don't know if that is working.
I do like the cleanliness of the g-s properties, although I wonder if
perhaps we now offer too few options.
On Mon, 2006-02-13 at 11:19 +, Gustavo J. A. M. Carneiro wrote:
> On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 12:10 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> > with gnome-screensaver now.
> >
> > Having now used both of them, d
On Tue, 2006-02-07 at 12:10 +0800, Davyd Madeley wrote:
> I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> with gnome-screensaver now.
>
> Having now used both of them, does it seem slow for anyone else? It
> seems that something has gone astray once or twice a
tir, 07,.02.2006 kl. 14.55 +0800, skrev Davyd Madeley:
> On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:53:15AM +0100, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> > tir, 07,.02.2006 kl. 12.10 +0800, skrev Davyd Madeley:
> > > I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> > >
On 2/7/06, William Jon McCann <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> Hello Davyd,
>
> Davyd Madeley wrote:
> > I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> > with gnome-screensaver now.
> >
> > Having now used both of them, does it seem
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 09:48:25AM -0500, William Jon McCann wrote:
> Hello Davyd,
>
> Davyd Madeley wrote:
> >I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> >with gnome-screensaver now.
> >
> >Having now used both of them, does it seem
Hello Davyd,
Davyd Madeley wrote:
I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
with gnome-screensaver now.
Having now used both of them, does it seem slow for anyone else? It
seems that something has gone astray once or twice and forced me to
have to change vt and kill
On Tue, Feb 07, 2006 at 07:53:15AM +0100, Kjartan Maraas wrote:
> tir, 07,.02.2006 kl. 12.10 +0800, skrev Davyd Madeley:
> > I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> > with gnome-screensaver now.
> >
> > Having now used both of them, does i
tir, 07,.02.2006 kl. 12.10 +0800, skrev Davyd Madeley:
> I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
> with gnome-screensaver now.
>
> Having now used both of them, does it seem slow for anyone else? It
> seems that something has gone astray once or twice a
I see that both Ubuntu Dapper and Fedora Core 5 test 2 are shipping
with gnome-screensaver now.
Having now used both of them, does it seem slow for anyone else? It
seems that something has gone astray once or twice and forced me to
have to change vt and kill the process to get my session back.
I
nd/or that users should be able to configure timeouts).
Here (in Italy) here is a law modeled on Section 508 and WCAG 1.0 [1]. A
requisite for this law is something like: if a service is available only
within a T time, you have to declare it to the user and advise about the
maximum time.
So:
*
;s account, saves the child's
unsaved documents etc, and shuts down the computer for the night.
gnome-screensaver should, like gdm, offer to suspend the computer.
...
And if you are asking for a password to do it, then, why can't you
just enter the password, and go to Desktop->Log o
Child's mother comes along, unlocks
> > > the child's account, saves the child's unsaved documents etc, and shuts
> > > down the computer for the night.
> >
> > gnome-screensaver should, like gdm, offer to suspend the computer.
> >
> hmm, where, i
e child's unsaved documents etc, and shuts
> > down the computer for the night.
>
> gnome-screensaver should, like gdm, offer to suspend the computer.
>
hmm, where, in the lock dialog? If so, anyone could walk though your
machine, which might be doing some background work, and s
Le mercredi 26 octobre 2005 à 23:39 -0200, Matthew Thomas a écrit :
> Use case: A child leaves
> the screen locked and goes to bed. Child's mother comes along, unlocks
> the child's account, saves the child's unsaved documents etc, and shuts
> down the computer for th
On 26 Oct, 2005, at 11:11 AM, JP Rosevear wrote:
...
I think its wrong to assume the face stuff will be used everywhere and
then to feature it prominently, essentially forcing it to be used or
to get a meaningless (large) abstract person all the time
...
Agreed -- I don't like being goateed a
This is my first post to this list. :-)
It would be useful, at least in my college to know for how long the computer has been locked.
I think a boolean 'lock_time' key in gconf would be useful, so that a sysadmin could set it as mandatory.-- Henrique Manuel Rocha <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Administração d
On Mer, 2005-10-26 at 10:31 -0700, Rob Adams wrote:
> scheme whereby the login dialog first authenticates itself to the user
> before the user typing in the password to avoid that, or a button you
> press before the login screen presents itself which is intercepted at
> the kernel level to cause th
politically.
[snip]
Yeah, I figured there would be lots of technical hurdles
to get past for this. I just want to throw in my support
for this as a long-term goal. For now, gnome-screensaver
is definitely a big improvement.
> > * As long as we have the model we have now, the user-switch
Rob Adams wrote:
The moral of the story is you're screwed on multi-user terminals.
That is, if you rely on prompting the user for passwords alone.
Jon
___
desktop-devel-list mailing list
desktop-devel-list@gnome.org
http://mail.gnome.org/mailman/list
e:
> Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > 3. Unlocking the screen with the root password should do the same as
> > choosing switch users, and logging in as root. Not doing so is a privacy
> > and security issue, as it may allow root access to remote hosts, that
> > root normally does not
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 10:44 -0400, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 13:57 -0400, JP Rosevear wrote:
> > On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 12:07 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> > > Hello,
> > >
> > > I am pleased to propose gnome-screensaver for inclusion in t
You weren't cheating and reading the code [1] were you? ;)
That is how it works now. However, you'll most likely need to setuid to
root for this to actually work.
Jon
[1]
http://cvs.gnome.org/viewcvs/gnome-screensaver/src/passwd-pam.c?v
William Jon McCann wrote:
>> How about...
>>
>> 3. Unlocking the screen with the root password should do the same as
>> choosing switch users, and logging in as root. Not doing so is a privacy
>> and security issue, as it may allow root access to remote hosts, that
>> root normally does not have ac
l end up at someone's locked screen. There must
be a way for the user to get back home to their VT.
I think in the long run we can integrate FUSA, GDM, and
gnome-screensaver better but we have some more work to do.
* As long as we have the model we have now, the user-switching
dialog n
> I've long held that XP got the interaction right. There's just one login
> screen. Unlocking your screen is just logging back in again. Switching
> users is just logging in.
>
> Right now, we have the OS X interaction: We have a login screen and a
> separate unlock dialog. The unlock dialo
On Tue, 2005-10-25 at 12:07 -0400, William Jon McCann wrote:
> Hello,
>
> I am pleased to propose gnome-screensaver for inclusion in the GNOME
> 2.14 Desktop release.
>
> gnome-screensaver is a new screensaver that can replace xscreensaver. It
> is designed to integrate
password into gnome-screensaver (when a non-root user is
logged in) should not do anything special at all, because the
administrator has no way of knowing that the "unlock dialog" isn't
really a trojan horse being run by the logged-in user, and so we really
shouldn't give him an
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 17:29, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> If someone has physical access to the machine, they can just unplug it
> and walk out the door too. Doesn't mean that our software should promote
> lack of privacy. If that's the case, let's just drop the screensaver
> totally. What's the point if
On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 17:15 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 17:03, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 16:54 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> > > On Wed, 2005-10-26 at 16:44, Rodney Dawes wrote:
> > >
> > > > 3. Unlocking the screen with the root password should do the s
On Mer, 2005-10-26 at 17:15 +0200, Xavier Bestel wrote:
> Root can gain access to your DISPLAY (~/.Xauthority), your tty, your env
> vars, strace or gdb a process, etc. It can even simply kill the
Depends how your security model is set up. GNOME runs on several
platforms (Linux included) with mor
1 - 100 of 145 matches
Mail list logo
