Richard Hector wrote: > However, I'm reluctant to embark on one-off efforts, partly because I don't > understand enough of the underlying structure, and partly because it only > solves it for me (if I understood more, maybe I could contribute back, but I > don't). > > As I say, I consider this to be a security flaw - people can hear something > of what my computer's doing when I'm not there and it's supposedly locked. > > Do others agree with that?
It *can* be a security issue, but it can also be desired behavior. I have an old laptop in my living room which has the sole purpose of being connected to my stereo to play music. I would be rather upset if it were to pause whenever the screensaver kicks in. So I would class this as a desirable configurable element. > Also, I don't know how much of the screen locking function is shared between > the many tools that are available for this purpose. Ideally, this problem > (if it's a problem) should be fixed in all such tools. There are at least four independent things. There is the Linux console, which has a configurable blanker. There is the X11 blanking mechanism, which can be controlled by xset and can optionally invoke DPMS to turn off a monitor. There are competing screensaver implementations: Xscreensaver and lightlocker, gnome-screensaver, mate-screensaver, ukui-screensaver, and probably others. > Does it sound reasonable then to submit a bug report to light-locker, with > the suggestion that the maintainers contact the maintainers of > similar/related packages as they see fit? You could do that. They would probably think of this as a feature request. -dsr-
