New lockscreen

[Martin Sandsmark]

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 screensaver process.
> Martin, please. I did most of the porting to the new architecture and I re-
> read the code before replying to your mail writing that. Yes, technically the 
> lock is held by a different process which doesn't invalidate what I wrote.

So both technically and from a user experience stand point the locking and
the screensaver were separate? IMHO that invalidates what you said.

> I have a huge problem if people twist my words. That is not what I have 
> written and not what I have meant. I quote my words:
> 
> "Btw. we are not the only ones who go the way of removing screen savers in 
> favor of lock screens. The same happened at GNOME and at Microsoft. So somehow 
> the people working on such features came all independently to the same 
> conclusion."
> 
> there is nothing in it that would say that GNOME at any influenced any of our 
> decisions.

You're trying to justify our decision (after the fact) by pointing at Gnome's
decision? Or am I misunderstanding you?

I'm not saying Gnome influenced our decision in the first place, I'm trying
to say that we shouldn't need to use Gnome to justify our own decisions. That
the Gnome people decide something does not validate anything, IMHO.

-- 
Martin Sandsmark