David Wright wrote:
> On Tue 13 Apr 2021 at 00:49:48 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
>> Kent West wrote:
>>
>>
>> Perhaps you try locking the session of the first user and see what
>> happens - if the second has access to the audio.
>
> It would also be interesting to know what happens when the first
Nicholas Geovanis wrote:
>
> The most interesting question to me:
> Has doc or first-principles failed so badly that we resort to
> experimentation again?
Yes, in the sense that there are too many ways for this to
legally exist to be able to say: "package foo is causing this,
and you can either
On Wed, Apr 14, 2021, 11:20 AM David Wright
wrote:
> On Tue 13 Apr 2021 at 00:49:48 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> > Kent West wrote:
> >
> > > I did some experimentation afterwards, and have discovered that if
>
> > Perhaps you try locking the session of the first user and see what
> happens -
On Tue 13 Apr 2021 at 00:49:48 (+0200), deloptes wrote:
> Kent West wrote:
>
> > I did some experimentation afterwards, and have discovered that if
> > user X mutes the mic, the mic then seems to be "owned" by user X, and
> > no one and no OS can seem to unmute it. I was using the machine as
> > u
On Tue, Apr 13, 2021 at 12:49:48AM +0200, deloptes wrote:
> Kent West wrote:
>
> > I did some experimentation afterwards, and have discovered that if
> > user X mutes the mic, the mic then seems to be "owned" by user X, and
> > no one and no OS can seem to unmute it. I was using the machine as
> >
Kent West wrote:
> I did some experimentation afterwards, and have discovered that if
> user X mutes the mic, the mic then seems to be "owned" by user X, and
> no one and no OS can seem to unmute it. I was using the machine as
> user Y, which is why I couldn't unmute it, and when I handed the
> la
6 matches
Mail list logo
