New lockscreen

Martin Gräßlin mgraesslin at
Fri Jan 11 13:14:37 GMT 2013

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
> > > > > 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.
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 the screen 
content", while unlock is completely unrelated. The old implementation had the 
"not exposing screen content" as a screen saver.
> > 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?
no I'm not justifying anything here. I just wanted to point out that others 
came to the same conclusion. Nothing more, nothing less. Nothing to interpret 
into. It's a side-remark as you can see that I start it with "Btw".
> 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.
then please write that and don't claim things people haven't said.
> That the Gnome people decide something does not validate anything, IMHO.
well if they got it right, it's right, isn't it? Just that GNOME did something 
doesn't mean it's wrong. Given your remark it sounds like that which would be 
very sad.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <>

More information about the kde-core-devel mailing list