Is it a security breach?

[Tiago Cogumbreiro]

There's no better use case then what happened this morning. I updated
the system and locked the screen since I didn't want anyone else to
fiddle with it, I had important documents opened. I leave the room to
grab something and when I come back the screen isn't locked anymore.

How userfriendly is that?

When I lock my screen I'm trusting this security layer, otherwise I
wouldn't be using it, right?

On 10/10/05, Phillip Susi <psusi at cfl.rr.com> wrote:
> Why is killing user processes evil?  It seems nice to me.  It keeps you
> from having to reboot, OR manually figure out what you need to restart.
>   It makes the upgrade process more smooth and user friendly.  People
> like not having to reboot.
>
> Martin Pitt wrote:
> > Hi Oliver!
> >
> > Oliver Grawert [2005-10-10 16:29 +0200]:
> >
> >>from xscreensaver.postinst (i didnt change it from the debian version)
> >>
> >>---- snip ----
> >># Reload all running xscreensaver processes
> >>if [ "$1" = "configure" ]; then
> >>        kill -s HUP `pidof xscreensaver` >/dev/null 2>&1 || true
> >>fi
> >>---- snap ----
> >
> >
> > Killing user processes in postinsts is pretty evil; since after a
> > dist-upgrade you need to reboot the computer anyway, it also is not
> > necessary.
> >
> > It would be worthwile to consider either completely removing this code
> > or maybe replace it with calling
> > /usr/share/update-notifier/notify-reboot-required (which is more than
> > necessary, but still better than killing).
> >
> > Martin