On Jan 6, 2023, at 1:50 AM, Bastian Germann wrote:
>
> But there is a version available at
> https://sourceforge.net/projects/ocr-a-font/ that might be free.
> You can certainly replace it.
This one seems better than that one: https://tsukurimashou.osdn.jp/ocr.php.en
Annoyingly, the name chang
Correction, Gallant is in fact BSD licensed:
http://ftp.netbsd.org/pub/NetBSD/NetBSD-current/src/sys/dev/wsfont/gallant12x22.h
False.
Luxi Mono is from Red Hat, I'm sure you've heard of them.
OCRA is an ANSI Standard, and is public domain.
Gallant is a reproduction of the Sun font created by Joshua M. Clulow and
released, as far as I am aware, into the public domain.
As I said, it's already fixed in 6.00. The fix is just to configure without
setcap and use setuid instead, which works properly with Mesa.
I assume that having 6.00 distributed by Debian prior to 2035 would be asking
too much, but we dare to dream.
Already fixed in XScreenSaver 6.00.
The bug is in Mesa: it has a panoply of env vars that do what LD_PRELOAD does,
except Mesa only checks geteuid instead of checking getauxval AT_SECURE, as the
kernel does. So anything that uses both Mesa and setcap is vulnerable.
Ironically, using setuid ins
.0 3748 664 pts/0S+ 21:56 0:00 grep saver
Note that pid 11997 does not have -nosplash on its command line.
--
Jamie Zawinski https://www.jwz.org/ https://www.dnalounge.com/
nd user B.
If things have gone wrong in a weird way, the "xscreensaver-systemd" process of
user A might linger, but it won't be able to communicate with user B's
xscreensaver.
--
Jamie Zawinski https://www.jwz.org/ https://www.dnalounge.com/
dministrator installed xscreensaver on a multi-user
system, the expectation would be for it to run in all graphical login sessions.
--
Jamie Zawinski https://www.jwz.org/ https://www.dnalounge.com/
> In xscreensaver (or maybe lightdm).
> Why is xscreensaver started in the lightdm session anyway?
> Is xscreensaver really usable as a per user service or should it be per
> session?
> Why is the lightdm xscreensaver instance interfering with the xscreensaver
> instance of the logged in user?
>
For best logging: xscreensaver -verbose -log log.txt
As far as I know, an XIO error means the X server dropped the connection to the
xscreensaver client. So either the X server itself crashed, or it decided to
disconnect xscreensaver for some unknown reason.
If the client had done something wrong, X11-protocol-wise, this would have been
a more v
Oh FFS, the pedantry of you people knows no bounds. It's not even a *real
emulator*.
Did you even try emailing him?
--
Jamie Zawinski https://www.jwz.org/ https://www.dnalounge.com/
Well, on every system I've ever had access to, intltool rarely works, so I took
to just ignoring it entirely. YMMV.
It's all fair use, and you're a pinhead.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
Driver bug, not xscreensaver.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to debian-bugs-rc-requ...@lists.debian.org
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact listmas...@lists.debian.org
On Sep 2, 2010, at 9:22 AM, Yves Lambert wrote:
> It looks like when xscreensaver child dies, xscreensaver does not
> launch another child and the keyboard is locked, only magic keys still
> works, no way to switch to another VT.
This statement makes no sense to me at all.
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE
That's a new one... Yes, -sync will probably help, as will a core file stack
trace. I suspect we will discover that some sub-process launched by your PAM
stack is crashing and taking libpam with it. That line about an unknown process
dying means that we got a SIGCHLD for a pid that xscreensaver
If the problem here is that you launched xscreensaver-demo while
gnome-screensaver was running but xscreensaver was not, then you should have
gotten a dialog box saying exactly that, and offering to shut down
gnome-screensaver, instead of simply saying that xscreensaver was not running.
See dr
KP_Minus.)
There is a bug if:
- It ever crashes (obviously!)
- There is ever a situation where a screen is not
completely covered by the xscreensaver windows.
(Unless two screens are configured to overlap).
Thanks!
--
Jamie Zawinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] h
interact with each other. I'm not about to
buy a new computer just for this.
--
Jamie Zawinski [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.jwz.org/
[EMAIL PROTECTED] http://www.dnalounge.com/
http://jwz.livejou
Did you test what happens if nscreens remains 0 for some length of
time, e.g., through another idle cycle? I'm guessing the answer is
"nothing good"...
It's hard to tell just by looking at it, but I suspect that, for
example, with that change it's going to be running hacks on screens
tha
I think this is fixed by the patch in bug 473681?
--
To UNSUBSCRIBE, email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
with a subject of "unsubscribe". Trouble? Contact [EMAIL PROTECTED]
On Mar 3, 2008, at 2:19 AM, Tormod Volden wrote:
Believe me, the reason for the package split is exactly to make things
easier for third-party screensaver infrastructures (like
gnome-screensaver and kscreensaver), so that they can use xscreensaver
hacks without the user having xscreensaver inst
Obviously, fireworkx should not be showing a transparent background.
Equally obviously, this is not a bug in xscreensaver. It's a bug in
the X server, or in some lower layer like the video driver. You
should reassign this.
Is fireworkx the only OpenGL saver that provokes this bug?
--
On Nov 5, 2007, at 4:11 PM, Steffen Joeris wrote:
With this patch, xscreensaver fails to build:
Sorry, typo: pw->prompt_screen should have been pw->prompt_screen-
>screen. Revised patch:
diff -u -r1.85 lock.c
--- lock.c 10 Jul 2007 20:27:24 - 1.85
+++ lock.c 1 Nov 2007
I don't understand how xscreensaver-gl-helper not being installed
could cause this sort of thing. However, this does sound vaguely
like another bug: can one of you who is able to reproduce the problem
try this patch and let me know if it works?
Thanks...
diff -u -r1.85 lock.c
--- lock.c
That patch is already included in 5.03. But you people are still
shipping 4.24, which is nearly eighteen months old. I really wish
you'd upgrade already.
Also, it is damned near impossible to exploit that. For it to be a
problem, the attacker needs to have already compromised either the
27 matches
Mail list logo
