Start new session...

[Thomas Zander]

On Thu, Oct 10, 2002 at 06:26:32PM +0200, Oswald Buddenhagen wrote:
> 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.

I do.


> > > 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.
Hmm? according to who?

>  you can't just replace a session with a new
> session - simply because according to the definition, it would still be
> the same session.

That is not what I am talking about, and it seems it again goes wrong on
usage of the word 'session'.
Please accept that KDE has used 'session' for ages for the session-management
stuff (saving a state when KDE shuts down) and we can't change that.  If I
ever talk about sessions I talk about the sessions KDE uses.

In every email you try to 'convince' us to use a totally different concept
behind the name 'session'.
I'm at a loss why you try again and again, it certainly does not help me
taking your points serious.

As you know; Matthias Ettrich wanted to have a good dialog done before 3.1
but did not find a good solution yet, you can refresh your memory on this;
    http://lists.kde.org/?t=101917830500003&r=1&w=2

> > 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.

That is because it is.

> <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.

(Good) dialogs are written in a way that reading the first line and the text on
the buttons is all the users NEEDS to do.
The rest is clarification.
This is why the lines are a bit the same, but very much needed to make
it readable.

> ** only in the locker dialog.
ok.

> > 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. :)
See above rant.

> but then, i'd word it
> An F-key is assigned to each session. [...] F%3 is assigned to this
> session. [... +the ...]

Same point; I disagree.

> > <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 ...
No reason to make it longer.

Your points try to claim the usage of session; therefor I still consider the
text Aaron proposed the final version.

-- 
Thomas Zander   zander at planescape.com
We are what we pretend to be