http://bugzilla.xfce.org/show_bug.cgi?id=3578
Yves-Alexis Perez <[email protected]> changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |[email protected] --- Comment #13 from Yves-Alexis Perez <[email protected]> 2009-01-15 06:59:14 UTC --- (In reply to comment #9) > Frankly, I don't want Xfce to support anything but xscreensaver out of the > box. Xfce already “supports” gnome-screensaver. xinitrc and xflock4 both run gnome-screensaver *first* if it's installed. There's a patch lying around in bugzilla for making xflock4 activate the *running* screensaver, btw. Oh, and “forcing” -mode blank for xlock seems to be secure for me. I do that on my own boxes, where I replace this in xflock4. (In reply to comment #12) > (In reply to comment #11) > > Whether or not you've had a problem with it is irrelevant to whether or not > > the > > app is generally secure. My opinion and plan stands. > > True in that it is not xscreensaver's fault that it is not called after > resume. > > One thing to keep in mind, if screensaver is started in 'autostarted > applications': If user wants to run also xflock4 there*, the former should be > started first. (One way to do it would be to put them both in a same script.) xflock4 is just a wrapper to lock the screen. It won't “run” any daemon. It'll start by trying to activate gnome-screensaver, then xscreensaver, and if none of them are present, try to run xlock. Which is not a screensaver but a locker, with no daemon running. -- Configure bugmail: http://bugzilla.xfce.org/userprefs.cgi?tab=email ------- You are receiving this mail because: ------- You are the QA contact for the bug. _______________________________________________ Xfce-bugs mailing list [email protected] http://foo-projects.org/mailman/listinfo/xfce-bugs
