Screen Saver Bug # 560298
xander.pirdy at gmail.com
Mon Apr 12 14:37:20 UTC 2010
On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Karl Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 11:31 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Karl Larsen<klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>> On 04/11/2010 07:54 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Karl Larsen<klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> Just because you are MUCH smarter than I, I do have a problem
>>>>> with this. By the way the bug is alive and a couple of Ubuntu experts
>>>>> are verifying what I wrote. I know they will. If it was you, you would
>>>>> try to hide this. It has happened many times. But not this time.
>>>> The bug was updated because of standard triage not developer interest.
>>>> If I were you, I would apologize for wasting the developers' time and
>>>> close it. I have just installed Karmic and it has exactly the same
>>>> screensaver setting (and Jaunty, Intrepid, Hardy, ... probably had it
>>>> too); a five-minute grace period is almost too long from a security
>>> My computer is in my shop and no person can even see it. I have all
>>> my versions turned off because I retired with a good nest egg 20 years
>>> ago and there is no one trying to find out my information. The Version
>>> Lucid 10.04 is the FIRST version to set up the default wait time to 5
>>> minutes, and set the requirement for a password, and use a see-through
>>> screen saver. This IS NEW!
>> I have just rechecked the settings. You are right, in Karmic, the
>> screensaver kicks in after five minutes but it does not lock the
>> It is not a bug though but good design whether your computer is locked
>> in your basement or not. Your bug will either be ignored or closed as
> Well it appears the REAL problem was the need to provide a
> password every 5 minutes. That is quite too much. Yes it is possible
> since the earlier versions did not require a password, they were just a
> minor problem until you discovered you could turn off the problem.
> I can see just, that business people at work would want to make
> their computers tamper proof or their laptops the same. Ubuntu lets you
> do this. I object to it being set up this way as a default setup.
> 73 Karl
Defaults are by necessity arbitrated, since no defaults will be
I personally would much rather that the system defaulted to a secure setup.
While I see that this has added a little bit of hassle to your
installation, it may have removed some from mine.
I find it fairly rude that you would think to suggest a bug report on
something that is clearly NOT a bug (see above if you are unclear on
It is a waste of everyone's time, and I am sick of it in my inbox. If
you need help turning this option off feel free to ask.
> Karl F. Larsen, AKA K5DI
> Linux User
> #450462 http://counter.li.org.
> Key ID = 3951B48D
> ubuntu-users mailing list
> ubuntu-users at lists.ubuntu.com
> Modify settings or unsubscribe at: https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-users
More information about the ubuntu-users