Start new session...

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 10:13:11AM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote:
> > > > > When pressing 'shutdown' in kdm, is there a message?
> > > > > 
> > > > no, that's todo. that's not a five-minute-hack.
> > > > 
> > > Before or after 3.1 ?
> > > 
> > [...] so the bottom line is: most probably after 3.1. :(
> 
> I don't think this is acceptable.
>
i don't consider it a show-stopper. sure, it can be a major problem, but
hey, this is not the only way you can nuke yourself or somebody else by
accident.
i'll do my best anyway. ;)

> I really feel that users should get a warning if they want to shutdown
> a machine and someone else-es stuff is still running.
> 
sure.

> > i don't see a real problem. this stuff does not conflict with
> > anything i've seen in kde so far. it "only" requires the user to
> > understand, that there can be multiple sessions active at the same
> > time. after all, there is nothing else called "new session" that
> > would do something with the current session, afaik.
> 
> Nobody created a dialog for it yet; but the functionality is there to
> allow multiple sessionmanagement kind of sessions.  The main reason
> you don't see it is since the people that programmed the functionality
> did not want to commit UI-wise broken stuff.
> 
no, this has another reason. you can't just replace a session with a new
session - simply because according to the definition, it would still be
the same session. and restoring an arbitrary session _state_ at any time
except at the beginning of the session is not feasible, as it would
include killing off already running applications and would probably have
other side effects. in any case, this would not be "new session", but
"restore session" or, as a special case "clear session". at least
in mdi speach ...

> I actually like Aaron's version better;
> 
i think we should combine both. :)

> You have chosen to start a new desktop instead of resuming an existing one.<br>
this sounds potentially destructive.
also, this is only feasible for the dialog in the screen locker. i
wanted to use the same text for all three affected apps. however, you
might be right here. :)
why do you insist on "session" being bad? i think that the word we
choose and the action associated with it are orthogonal. if you say
"start new desktop" the unknowledgable user could also think that this
would somehow affect his current session. and as session is technically
simply the most correct one, i don't see any reason not to use it.

<text take=5> :)

You have chosen to open another {simultaneous [*]} session {instead
of resuming the current one [**]}.<br>
The current session will be hidden and a new login screen will be
displayed.<br>

</text>

* this is probably unnecessary due to the second sentence, which
clarifies, that this operation is not going to change the current
session.
** only in the locker dialog.

the second sentence might sound a bit strange considering that the
session is already hidden by the locker, but if you consider the lock
part of the session, it makes sense again.

> Each desktop is assigned an F-key. F%1 is normally assigned to the first
> desktop, F%2 to the second desktop and so on. This desktop is assigned F%3.
> You can switch between desktops by pressing the CTRL, ALT and appropriate
> F-key at the same time.<br>
>
fine with me. except s/desktop/session/g, of course. :)
but then, i'd word it
An F-key is assigned to each session. [...] F%3 is assigned to this
session. [... +the ...]

> <b>Warning</b>: due to video card driver issues, running multiple desktops
> may cause system crashes on some computers.
> 
i'd include the "at the same time". not that it is not clear in this
situation, but who knows ...

greetings

-- 
Hi! I'm a .signature virus! Copy me into your ~/.signature, please!
--
Chaos, panic, and disorder - my work here is done.