On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 02:14:37PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> We are not talking about the same things. We have three parts here:
> * locking of screen (no keyboard, no mouse)
> * not exposing screen content
> * unlock dialog
>
> to me the lock screen is "locking the screen plus not exposing t
On Friday 11 January 2013 13:49:00 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:23:04PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately
> > > > > from
> > > > > th
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 01:23:04PM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from
> > > > the
> > > > screensaver.
> > And no, the lock screen was not running in the scr
On Friday 11 January 2013 12:52:04 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from
> > > the
> > > screensaver.
> >
> > no, it wasn't. The lock screen had been implemented inside
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 11:37:43AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the
> > screensaver.
> no, it wasn't. The lock screen had been implemented inside the screen savers.
> Yes blank screen was just another kind of screensavers.
On Friday 11 January 2013 11:40:07 Yuri Chornoivan wrote:
> Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:28:22 +0200 було написано Martin Gräßlin
>
> :
> > But the discussion again shows that just removing it completely and tell
> > people to use XSS if they want screen savers would have been the right
> > choice.
>
> Hi,
On Friday 11 January 2013 10:47:40 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security?
> > Nothing, right.
>
> Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from t
Fri, 11 Jan 2013 11:28:22 +0200 було написано Martin Gräßlin
:
But the discussion again shows that just removing it completely and tell
people to use XSS if they want screen savers would have been the right
choice.
Hi,
Just to be sure, does that mean that all KDE translation for
kdeartwor
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:28:22AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> and what has protecting the screen against burn-ins to do with security?
> Nothing, right.
Which is why the lock screen has usually been activated separately from the
screensaver.
> Btw. we are not the only ones who go the way of
On Friday 11 January 2013 10:12:13 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> > no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove
> > the
> > feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did
> > you last
On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 09:49:06AM +0100, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the
> feature. The use case for screen savers does no longer exist or when did you
> last have a screen which needs to be saved? For background reading I
> re
On Friday 11 January 2013 09:28:19 Martin Sandsmark wrote:
> Well, the old one managed to be both, so IMHO if we remove features it is a
> regression (though which ones are you talking about?).
no, removing features is not a regression. It is the decision to remove the
feature. The use case for sc
12 matches
Mail list logo
