Start new session...

[Oswald Buddenhagen]

On Wed, Oct 09, 2002 at 10:54:06AM +0200, Thomas Zander wrote:
> You did not provide very good answers to my objections.
>
so i'm wondering, why you didn't speak up earlier.

> It certainly is NOT
> a bugfix, it certainly does provide a lot more bugs in usability.
> You even said its not a bugfix, quote; 
> http://lists.kde.org/?l=kde-core-devel&m=103355779511292&w=2
>     'it's the most requested feature for kdm.'
> 
short version: it's a bugfix, as it saves us from removing the most
requested feature again.
long version: kdm supports reserve displays since kde 3.0. until now
they were started automaticaly when all already running sessions were
locked (what is obviously _very_ bad from a usability pov). just that
most people didn't notice, as "make install" (genkdmconf) "recycled"
their old configuration (Xservers) without configuring the new feature.
so we had the situation "works for only a few, which of some love it and
some hate it". so basically we can move only forward, which is a no-win
situation during a feature freeze.

> I am very surprised this feature went into HEAD, and feel you have
> 'sneaked' it past us.
>
no, i "sneaked" past _you_, ...

> I objected; you wrote a I don't agree to your objection and put it in
> anyway.
>
... as you did not object to my objections to your objections until now.
;)

> That is not a very nice way to work in a version that is suppost to be
> stable...
> 
well, it _is_ stable (code-wise; the ui will obviously change later).
it's only not the best usability-wise. but still better than before.

> I'm wondering if you could please revert your commit until the usability
> problems I noted are fixed.
>
no.

> I have problems with the following issues;
> - it can't work perfectly, you can't have 2 sessions open and have NO
> adverse effects
>
who says, that it has to work perfectly? i'm happy if it works
sufficiently well.

>   This has to be either fixed, or made perfectly clear to the user.
>
some of the issues are inherent and therefore unfixable. so there is no
"or".

> - it is lacking severly in the feedback department. 
>   At several points the user of the machine has to know about the session.
>
yes. but i don't consider this a show-stopper. it's only one more
thing the user has to be taught about.

> - the distinction between session management and your feature should
>   be obvious to users.
> 
granted.

so the only short-time solution (except disabling this at all, which
would upset several people) is adding this continue/cancel message
box with roughly this text (improvements welcome):

A new X-Server is going to be started on another virtual terminal (vt).
This won't affect your current session, but instead you (or somebody
else) will be able to login in parallel. You can switch among the
active sessions by pressing <alt>-<ctrl>-<F<n>>, where <n> is the number
of the vt, usually 7 and greater.
Warning: some broken video drivers tend to crash the machine when
several X-Servers are running in parallel.


oh, maybe call it "start parallel session" instead of "start new
session"? sounds weird ...
maybe "Open another XDisplay"? :)

> And I don't believe you can fix all of those points. Please prove me wrong.
> 
yes, we all know that you don't want this feature added at all. but in
the end (that is, outside the freeze) you're a minority. ;)

greetings

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