(In reply to Sergey Kondakov from comment #86)
> 2) GNOME screensaver requires the core GNOME framework to go with it, not
> just GTK. Kinda overkill for a screensaver.
Scratch that ! I just read up on:
http://www.jwz.org/blog/2011/10/has-gnome-3-decided-that-people-shouldnt-want-screen-
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #83)
> I'll add that xdg-screensaver is an unmitigated piece of . It
> reimplements the bugs that using D-Bus for inhibition is supposed to fix
> (namely that if the app disappears, the screensaver shouldn't be left
> inhibited).
Mh, yeah, it's odd that
(In reply to Bastien Nocera from comment #80)
> It's not "dbus xscreensaver interface support". It has nothing to do with
> XScreensaver.
Ah, just noticed ancient https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-
bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=377056
> XScreensaver implements no D-Bus interface. The D-Bus interface should wor
Doesn't seem to be fixed in Firefox 33 on OpenSuse 13.1 with KDE4 &
XScreenSaver-5.29 (not KDE's one): xscreensaver still sprungs up while
playing fullscreen video on Youtube. May be a result of using "Download
Manager (S3)" addon which draws a bar at the bottom that disappear
slightly after video
(In reply to Milan Bouchet-Valat from comment #78)
> Sergey, could you check whether with the S3 add-on disabled the screensaver
> is still not inhibited?
It's that way even with almost empty profile and "safe mode". I also
noticed that VLC-2.1.5 doesn't inhibit it also even thought it
supposedly
i, personally, learned that KDE4 allows for hidden desktop elements,
which cannot be removed by KDE's own means (since it lacks "remove"
option in plasmoids list and a comprehensive active plasmoids list at
all, unlike KDE3) and can seriously screw up one's desktop in non-
obvious way.
and that is
i totally agree with you on that way of _upgrade_ (going to another version of
distribution) where interaction is expected.
usual everyday _update_ though should be unattentive as possible and this what
i suggest for bug 241368.
thank you and, please, someone give some attention to 241368 too al
and why on Earth you keep talking about testers convenience in their
testing environment and pre-releases when i, and probably most people,
talk about user convenience on stable, if that can be said about ubuntu,
final release ? 0_o
i starting to have an impression that you suggesting that i shoul
>Those old kernels can often be useful when there is a regression.
i doubt there will be much regressions in kernels of the same minor version
ever.
especially ones which render kernel unbootable.
>I can't remember how many times having the old kernel around has saved
my bacon.
keyword will be
do you read me at all ? my point that _disk space_ is NOT an ISSUE
here... boot menu selection list is.
update manager should care about space only then it is scarce and if it
truly "automatic updater" it should not interact with user unless it
absolutely necessary for system (like it asks about u
there is no reason ever for something which being updated automatically
to have multiple versions unless they can be used simultaneously. the
only exception is old backup kernel in case of critical regression in
the new one since kernel is core of everything, that's it.
most of people do not know
after installing Ubuntu for people in dual-boot, having more then 2
select lines (latest kernel+recovery) for Ubuntu (and Windows(tm) always
has only 1) really pisses them off.
while i think 2 kernels would be adequate, 4 lines really pushes it -
they _never_ able to find "Windows" option among th
12 matches
Mail list logo
