You are right, thanks Chris. The screen saver is disabled there.
However, the current architecture/concept is not consistent in itself:
- what for is there an icon, when it doesn't have any effect?
- why doesn't clicking the icon start the required programm
(gnome-screen-saver) by itself?
- why isn't there any feedback about why nothing happens when I tell the
computer to do some action (lock the screen) and it doesn't do it?
- why is it necessary to occupy virtual memory and CPU cycles with a programm
(gnome-screensaver), when the programm doesn't do anything useful during
its life? Locking the screen is an active action from the user and thus
gnome-screensaver can be startet and stoped when it is not needed?
- why does it have an effect to click on the "lock" icon but not any effect to
click on the "shutdown" icon and choose "Lock Screen"?
** Changed in: gnome-screensaver (Ubuntu)
Status: Invalid => New
** Summary changed:
- lock doesn't lock
+ lock doesn't lock when gnome-screensaver not running in the background
--
lock doesn't lock when gnome-screensaver not running in the background
https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/509411
You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu
Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu.
--
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
[email protected]
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
