I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
Am 22.04.2015 um 22:35 schrieb Germano Massullo:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
+1
and if you are at it give SDDM a option to *not* turn off monitor after some time of idle since their is no power saving with modern screens and such defaults are just annyoing
On 04/22/2015 02:35 PM, Germano Massullo wrote:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I disagree, but meh. It's a setting we would enforce in our environment (although perhaps with a slightly longer delay).
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Ciao
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 23:57 +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Your phone turns off the screen to save battery, and may optionally lock for security against theft (though I don't know of any that do this by default). A desktop is a completely different use case.
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan ha scritto:
On Wed, 2015-04-22 at 23:57 +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Your phone turns off the screen to save battery, and may optionally lock for security against theft (though I don't know of any that do this by default). A desktop is a completely different use case.
Security is an important reason for locking phones; pattern-based lock is quite widespread, and I think that encrypted phones are going to be more and more common (with obvious need for a locker).
A laptop is not a different use case (security). A desktop, maybe (in company yes, at home it depends :)
Ciao
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 00:36 +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your
phone locks
automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Your phone turns off the screen to save battery, and may optionally
lock
for security against theft (though I don't know of any that do this
by
default). A desktop is a completely different use case.
Security is an important reason for locking phones; pattern-based lock is quite widespread, and I think that encrypted phones are going to be more and more common (with obvious need for a locker).
None of which is relevant to Linux desktops, as I was trying to point out.
A laptop is not a different use case (security).
A laptop may or may not be different, depending on context. Lots of people just leave them in one (secure) place all the time, and when they want to keep prying eyes away they shut the lid. That is when a lock should be applied, not just because of some timeout. Remember we're talking about the default case.
A desktop, maybe (in company yes, at home it depends :)
In a company maybe, at home maybe.
poc
On 2015-04-22 16:44, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 00:36 +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your
phone locks
automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Your phone turns off the screen to save battery, and may optionally
lock
for security against theft (though I don't know of any that do this
by
default). A desktop is a completely different use case.
Security is an important reason for locking phones; pattern-based lock is quite widespread, and I think that encrypted phones are going to be more and more common (with obvious need for a locker).
None of which is relevant to Linux desktops, as I was trying to point out.
A laptop is not a different use case (security).
A laptop may or may not be different, depending on context. Lots of people just leave them in one (secure) place all the time, and when they want to keep prying eyes away they shut the lid. That is when a lock should be applied, not just because of some timeout. Remember we're talking about the default case.
A desktop, maybe (in company yes, at home it depends :)
In a company maybe, at home maybe.
poc
So the option to disable this feature is easy to do.
To me, laptops are not desktops and need to be treated the same as part of this thread states, like phones. In our house, two of three laptops are used mainly outside the house. One is used almost exclusively inside but still is configured for secure usage. Screen lock is used as well as power saving features.
The desktop uses the present screensaver and power saving to blank the screen for night time light saving. To make the room darker. If the power saving doesn't blank the screen, it throws a large amount of light into a very dark room.
As all the machines in our house can possibly be used by any person with their own accounts, screen locking can prevent one of the others from doing something to your work. Also, little kids can be destructive without knowing what they are doing. In one case, our son opened over 200 Firefox windows on one laptop.
I vote for the default to be locked. I feel that the ratio of unlocked over locked is very low. In our house, three laptops and two desktops, all with screensavers/locks working.
Robin
I use a laptop too, and when I need to lock the screen, I simply close the screen lid
Am 23.04.2015 um 09:37 schrieb Germano Massullo:
I use a laptop too, and when I need to lock the screen, I simply close the screen lid
or just lock it manually
i know at my own if i am at home with no other person around me or sit in front of my notebook in a cafe while having a phone call where it makes no sense to lock the screen and do not need babysitting from my computer
frankly having a 10 minute phone call, the screen in the meantime locked and need at the end of the call some information from the computer needing both hands to unlock it is bad usability
that's fine for a phone/tablet/phablet but not for a grown up computer
On 04/23/2015 04:37 AM, Germano Massullo wrote:
I use a laptop too, and when I need to lock the screen, I simply close the screen lid _______________________________________________ kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
I use Ctrl-Alt-L when I want to lock the screen right away.
On 23 April 2015 at 06:54, Robin Laing MeSat@telusplanet.net wrote:
On 2015-04-22 16:44, Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
On Thu, 2015-04-23 at 00:36 +0200, Luigi Toscano wrote:
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your
phone locks
automatically or not? It's the same IMHO.
Your phone turns off the screen to save battery, and may optionally
lock
for security against theft (though I don't know of any that do this
by
default). A desktop is a completely different use case.
Security is an important reason for locking phones; pattern-based lock is quite widespread, and I think that encrypted phones are going to be more and more common (with obvious need for a locker).
None of which is relevant to Linux desktops, as I was trying to point out.
A laptop is not a different use case (security).
A laptop may or may not be different, depending on context. Lots of people just leave them in one (secure) place all the time, and when they want to keep prying eyes away they shut the lid. That is when a lock should be applied, not just because of some timeout. Remember we're talking about the default case.
A desktop, maybe (in company yes, at home it depends :)
In a company maybe, at home maybe.
poc
So the option to disable this feature is easy to do.
To me, laptops are not desktops and need to be treated the same as part of this thread states, like phones. In our house, two of three laptops are used mainly outside the house. One is used almost exclusively inside but still is configured for secure usage. Screen lock is used as well as power saving features.
Phones are not laptops are not desktops. The phone in your pocket can be stolen (or out of your hand) or easily misplaced and is often always on. Your laptop if being carried out and about is probably powered off. When in use it will likely be at a desk. It is easier to carry off than a desktop, but harder to misplace than a phone. A desktop rarely moves and is harder to wander off with inconspicuously. Unauthorised access in place is more of a concern.
People can use settings according to their own circumstances. At work we deal with sensitive data and enforce desktop locking after a set time (we also try to enforce people locking their desktops if away from their desk), this is despite it being a secure environment where walking out with or a stranger making unauthorised use of one would be very difficult.
At home I leave my computer on with a screen sleep that does not lock, there are no children running around opening things, so there isn't a child gate on the stairs either. It's particularly annoying in a VM that's running something to find it's locked itself while you've been looking at another task. A five minute lock is very aggressive, especially for desktop or VM use.
Fairly sure my phone did not come with locking set up as default (just swipe to 'unlock'). It certainly has it set now.
Am 22.04.2015 um 23:57 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 22.04.2015 um 23:57 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Lukáš Tinkl:
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 22.04.2015 um 23:57 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
5 minutes is a bad joke
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:32:32 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Lukáš Tinkl:
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
I think that there is an more global advantage with the current settings.
Compare: - annoyed *once* and locker disabled forever vs - device by default with no locker and potential untracked access
Is also the login password an aggressive default?
Ciao
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:32:32 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Lukáš Tinkl:
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
I think that there is an more global advantage with the current settings.
Compare:
- annoyed *once* and locker disabled forever
vs
- device by default with no locker and potential untracked access
close the lid of a notebook -> locked
Is also the login password an aggressive default?
laughable comparison
there are worlds between power on a foreign machine and need to authenticate then force the user to move the mouse all the time to prevent screen locking - have fun watching a video with that stupid behavior
Dne 23.4.2015 v 14:53 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:32:32 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Lukáš Tinkl:
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
I think that there is an more global advantage with the current settings.
Compare:
- annoyed *once* and locker disabled forever
vs
- device by default with no locker and potential untracked access
close the lid of a notebook -> locked
Is also the login password an aggressive default?
laughable comparison
there are worlds between power on a foreign machine and need to authenticate then force the user to move the mouse all the time to prevent screen locking - have fun watching a video with that stupid behavior
We fixed that stupid behavior in Plasma 5.3
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:53:50 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:32:32 Reindl Harald wrote:
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
I think that there is an more global advantage with the current settings.
Compare:
- annoyed *once* and locker disabled forever
vs
- device by default with no locker and potential untracked access
close the lid of a notebook -> locked
Sure, you can lock manually. The point is that the default behavior helps more when you forget closing it.
Is also the login password an aggressive default?
laughable comparison
It's not. The perception of what it's needed/secure changes in time. No windows desktop had login 15 years ago. Now it's definitely different.
there are worlds between power on a foreign machine and need to authenticate then force the user to move the mouse all the time to prevent screen locking - have fun watching a video with that stupid
Wrong example: video player knows how to make activity and not activate the locker. You can watch your movie.
Ciao
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:59 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:53:50 Reindl Harald wrote:
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:45 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
On Thursday 23 of April 2015 14:32:32 Reindl Harald wrote:
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
I think that there is an more global advantage with the current settings.
Compare:
- annoyed *once* and locker disabled forever
vs
- device by default with no locker and potential untracked access
close the lid of a notebook -> locked
Sure, you can lock manually. The point is that the default behavior helps more when you forget closing it.
Is also the login password an aggressive default?
laughable comparison
It's not. The perception of what it's needed/secure changes in time. No windows desktop had login 15 years ago. Now it's definitely different.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_NT released in July 1993 are 22 years and besides that it *is* because you can't prevent somebody from shoot in his foot
if someone has his notebook on a desk in a cafe and goes to the toilet without close the lid or lock it manually he has lost the game entirely because even a minute is too long and so lock after 5 or 10 minutes don#t really improve security
there are worlds between power on a foreign machine and need to authenticate then force the user to move the mouse all the time to prevent screen locking - have fun watching a video with that stupid
Wrong example: video player knows how to make activity and not activate the locker. You can watch your movie
does a "tail -f" of the maillog on our company server know it too? does htop know it too? does rdesktop watching a remote session know it too?
Dne 23.4.2015 v 14:32 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 23.04.2015 um 14:30 schrieb Lukáš Tinkl:
Dne 23.4.2015 v 11:12 Reindl Harald napsal(a):
Am 22.04.2015 um 23:57 schrieb Luigi Toscano:
Germano Massullo ha scritto:
I would like to talk about screen lock in KDE Plasma 5.
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
I would rather keep it as it. Especially for laptops. Does your phone locks automatically or not? It's the same IMHO
my workstation is not a phone and when i sit in front of the TV and look to the PC i am interested if a long running task is finish or in which folders new mails arrived but *not* in a screen lock
Indeed, and you as a savvy user know very well how to turn the screenlock off :)
and what about the not savvy users which have no problem right click and lock the screen if they want and need but need to dig around to find out how to disable aggressive defaults?
5 minutes is a bad joke
Ye I'm fine with making the default interval longer but disabling it completely... nope.
Germano Massullo wrote:
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
+1. Sorry Lukáš and Rex, but we should really override the upstream default and revert to the Plasma 4 default here.
Automatically locking the screen after n minutes of inactivity is inherently flawed and insecure, because it gives an attacker n minutes of time to take over your desktop. There is NO alternative to locking your screen manually when leaving your desktop. Therefore, supporting automatic locking sends the entirely wrong message. (It lets users get away with laziness, until they get burned by it.)
And then there is the annoyance factor already mentioned by other posters. And the added exceptions for things like video players just make it MORE likely that the automatic locking the user was relying on will not happen (e.g., because of an embedded video in some web page in the background).
The message should be: If you want the screen to be locked, then lock it. It only takes 2 clicks.
Kevin Kofler
On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 04:30 +0200, Kevin Kofler wrote:
Germano Massullo wrote:
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
+1. Sorry Lukáš and Rex, but we should really override the upstream default and revert to the Plasma 4 default here.
Automatically locking the screen after n minutes of inactivity is inherently flawed and insecure, because it gives an attacker n minutes of time to take over your desktop. There is NO alternative to locking your screen manually when leaving your desktop. Therefore, supporting automatic locking sends the entirely wrong message. (It lets users get away with laziness, until they get burned by it.)
And then there is the annoyance factor already mentioned by other posters. And the added exceptions for things like video players just make it MORE likely that the automatic locking the user was relying on will not happen (e.g., because of an embedded video in some web page in the background).
I entirely agree.
The message should be: If you want the screen to be locked, then lock it. It only takes 2 clicks.
Or close the lid if it's a laptop (which seems to be the use case most people are concerned about).
Slightly OT: video players can prevent locking, but can they prevent the screen going dark? This happens to me all the time when watching a long video.
poc
Am 26.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
Slightly OT: video players can prevent locking, but can they prevent the screen going dark? This happens to me all the time when watching a long video.
well, i disable all that "power savings" for the screen which don't save anything measureable these days, when i want my screen locked or powered off i do that on my own
when not it's on for good reasons like sit in front of the TV and due go to the kitchen for a fresh beer take a quick look if something interesting happended in my mailclient or messenger
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:43:08 +0200 Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 26.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
Slightly OT: video players can prevent locking, but can they prevent the screen going dark? This happens to me all the time when watching a long video.
I know that mplayer disables dpms settings automatically (and by default) when playing a video (or even only audio!). I also know that when watching videos on YouTube (in firefox, using whatever the default backend player) the dpms settings do *not* get disabled, and the screen may go into standby in the middle of an interesting scene. :-) I wouldn't know about other video players (I use only mplayer), but I guess that they should implement this feature also (if they're worth their wit anyway).
Finally, one can control this behavior manually, using "xset -dpms" and "xset +dpms" (man xset, and look for dpms-related options).
The dpms is also being turned off automatically (AFAIK) when working in "presentation" mode in okular (i.e. when your document is displayed in fullscreen) --- you don't want the screen with your important slides to go into standby in the middle of a lecture you're giving. ;-) Again, I don't know about other document viewers out there.
well, i disable all that "power savings" for the screen which don't save anything measureable these days, when i want my screen locked or powered off i do that on my own
It certainly is measurable, and turning off the screen can save considerable amount of battery power, in an idling laptop situation (people can be forgetful and undisciplined to turn it off while taking an unexpected phone-call, or when children yell for attention, or some such --- not having to babysit your laptop can be very convenient).
In a desktop situation it usually doesn't make much sense. Maybe in a rare situation of power-grid failure, when the UPS batteries take over the load of the servers and terminals in your datacenter --- shutting off idle monitors can make all the difference between staying online through the crisis versus having to reboot the whole infrastructure. But of course that's not a very common situation (it happened to me only once).
when not it's on for good reasons like sit in front of the TV and due go to the kitchen for a fresh beer take a quick look if something interesting happended in my mailclient or messenger
Just put "xset -dpms" somewhere in your login (or bootup) scripts, and live happily everafter. :-)
Best, :-) Marko
On Sun, 2015-04-26 at 14:21 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
On Sun, 26 Apr 2015 12:43:08 +0200 Reindl Harald h.reindl@thelounge.net wrote:
Am 26.04.2015 um 12:28 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
Slightly OT: video players can prevent locking, but can they prevent the screen going dark? This happens to me all the time when watching a long video.
I know that mplayer disables dpms settings automatically (and by default) when playing a video (or even only audio!). I also know that when watching videos on YouTube (in firefox, using whatever the default backend player) the dpms settings do *not* get disabled, and the screen may go into standby in the middle of an interesting scene. :-) I wouldn't know about other video players (I use only mplayer), but I guess that they should implement this feature also (if they're worth their wit anyway).
[...]
Just put "xset -dpms" somewhere in your login (or bootup) scripts, and live happily everafter. :-)
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm mainly interested in Youtube videos, most of which are quite long courseware sessions on my desktop. I hesitate to turn off screen blanking entirely but I guess it's something I'll have to get used to.
poc
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 11:42:10 +0100 Patrick O'Callaghan pocallaghan@gmail.com wrote:
Thanks for the detailed answer. I'm mainly interested in Youtube videos, most of which are quite long courseware sessions on my desktop. I hesitate to turn off screen blanking entirely but I guess it's something I'll have to get used to.
Well, if you really want to have it under control, you can create a toolbar button/icon/launcher/whatever that will turn dpms on/off as you wish. Of course it would be better if the browser were intelligent enough to do it for you automatically, but I'm not sure it can be configured to do so.
As for longer online videos --- when I need to watch YouTube material that is, say, 1 hour long (a lecture or some such), I typically use youtube-dl to download the thing locally, and then play it in mplayer. For my usecase, this is much more convenient, because:
* UI is more comfortable than html could ever provide (seek, pause, window size and fullscreen, loop, timestamps, brightness, contrast, ...); * the video is usually worth keeping for watching more than once later on; * no need to keep a bunch of YouTube tabs open in firefox (it gets bloated really fast), or maintaining bookmarks or such; * the video can be watched offline (while in the train or an airplane); * there is no risk that the owner may delete the video from their YouTube account and make it unavailable.
Otherwise, when a friend sends me a YouTube video with the latest 2-minute joke or something, I just watch it once in the browser and then forget about it... ;-)
Best, :-) Marko
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:37 +0100, Marko Vojinovic wrote:
As for longer online videos --- when I need to watch YouTube material that is, say, 1 hour long (a lecture or some such), I typically use youtube-dl to download the thing locally, and then play it in mplayer. For my usecase, this is much more convenient, because:
- UI is more comfortable than html could ever provide (seek, pause, window size and fullscreen, loop, timestamps, brightness, contrast, ...);
- the video is usually worth keeping for watching more than once later on;
- no need to keep a bunch of YouTube tabs open in firefox (it gets bloated really fast), or maintaining bookmarks or such;
- the video can be watched offline (while in the train or an
airplane);
- there is no risk that the owner may delete the video from their YouTube account and make it unavailable.
All true. I generally use the browser as these are typically sequences of multiple videos that link together, but it's true that viewing them offline makes them easier to pause and continue later. YouTube has adopted the annoying habit of starting the video (from the beginning) as soon as you open the tab, even if it's restoring a browser session from earlier.
poc
On Sunday, April 26, 2015 04:30:53 AM Kevin Kofler wrote:
Germano Massullo wrote:
KDE Plasma 5 locks the screen with user password after 5 minutes of system being in idle. I think that we should disable screenlock as default behaviour for KDE Plasma, because it will annoy many users. If anybody needs it, it can be easly activated.
+1. Sorry Lukáš and Rex, but we should really override the upstream default and revert to the Plasma 4 default here.
Automatically locking the screen after n minutes of inactivity is inherently flawed and insecure, because it gives an attacker n minutes of time to take over your desktop. There is NO alternative to locking your screen manually when leaving your desktop. Therefore, supporting automatic locking sends the entirely wrong message. (It lets users get away with laziness, until they get burned by it.)
And then there is the annoyance factor already mentioned by other posters. And the added exceptions for things like video players just make it MORE likely that the automatic locking the user was relying on will not happen (e.g., because of an embedded video in some web page in the background).
The message should be: If you want the screen to be locked, then lock it. It only takes 2 clicks.
We should *NOT* change the default behaviour. The message to users is "there is a lockscreen". That's it. That's the point. It's for new users (as well as many existing users) to realize that there is this important security measure. The only way to introduce an important feature to users is to enable it by default.
It's not to teach people to rely on their screen locking in 5 minutes, but to make sure the screen locks when you forget to. It's to safeguard your data when you /forget/ to lock the screen.
I never had a problem with my screen autolocking when watching movies or playing games (what else are you people doing that you just stare into the screen for 5 minutes?) - and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto- lockscreen, the fix is to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
And for the argument that "it's just 30 seconds and few clicks to turn the autolock on again". Well it's also 30 seconds and a few clicks to turn it off. Your annoyance does not outweight the added security the automatic lockscreen provides.
Cheers, Daniel
Kevin Kofler
kde mailing list kde@lists.fedoraproject.org https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/kde New to KDE4? - get help from http://userbase.kde.org
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 12:57 +0200, Daniel Vrátil wrote:
I never had a problem with my screen autolocking when watching movies or playing games (what else are you people doing that you just stare into the screen for 5 minutes?)
When I'm watching a 50-minutes lecture I'm paying attention and taking notes. What else would I be doing?
- and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto-lockscreen, the fix is
to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
IMHO inhibition should be automatically set any time a video is playing, no matter what the specific player is. How would you suggest we do that?
poc
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
- and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto-lockscreen, the fix is
to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
IMHO inhibition should be automatically set any time a video is playing, no matter what the specific player is. How would you suggest we do that?
File bugs against the video player that has not yet implemented inhibition. In this case, adobe/flash-plugin (or not, adobe has been aware of this issue for years)
-- rex
Am 27.04.2015 um 14:35 schrieb Rex Dieter:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
- and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto-lockscreen, the fix is
to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
IMHO inhibition should be automatically set any time a video is playing, no matter what the specific player is. How would you suggest we do that?
File bugs against the video player that has not yet implemented inhibition. In this case, adobe/flash-plugin (or not, adobe has been aware of this issue for years)
and aginast IDE's, text editors, RDP software, ajax-webinterfaces
not they are not broken and hence don't need to be fixed, the only thing which needs to be fixed are useless defaults pretending that they improve security while they don't
Kevin explained that well - even 1 minute is to long if yu leave your machine alone and if you don#t let it alone no lock is needed at all
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 07:35 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
- and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto-lockscreen, the fix is
to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
IMHO inhibition should be automatically set any time a video is playing, no matter what the specific player is. How would you suggest we do that?
File bugs against the video player that has not yet implemented inhibition. In this case, adobe/flash-plugin (or not, adobe has been aware of this issue for years)
So Adobe has been aware for years but hasn't fixed it. What exactly do you think would be achieved by filing (another) bug report? And the same for every other app that displays video.
As I tried to say, my take on this is that the problem should be dealt with at another level. Blanking/locking the screen is a desktop policy issue. It should not be left to the individual apps to decide whether to implement something reasonable or not. I would ask for a *global* switch (we can argue about what the default should be) that allows the user to inhibit blanking/locking while a video is running. It may be that the condition "video is running in some window" is not easy to detect reliably, and maybe that's why it hasn't been done for X Window environments, but we can dream.
poc
Am 27.04.2015 um 17:31 schrieb Patrick O'Callaghan:
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 07:35 -0500, Rex Dieter wrote:
Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
- and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto-lockscreen, the fix is
to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
IMHO inhibition should be automatically set any time a video is playing, no matter what the specific player is. How would you suggest we do that?
File bugs against the video player that has not yet implemented inhibition. In this case, adobe/flash-plugin (or not, adobe has been aware of this issue for years)
So Adobe has been aware for years but hasn't fixed it. What exactly do you think would be achieved by filing (another) bug report? And the same for every other app that displays video.
As I tried to say, my take on this is that the problem should be dealt with at another level. Blanking/locking the screen is a desktop policy issue. It should not be left to the individual apps to decide whether to implement something reasonable or not
and to add:
that is (wrongly) selled as security improvement, well, if random applications can decide to disable it you are lost and finally the history of that thread proves that it *is not* a security feature, has the opposite effect and just annoys users
On Monday 27 April 2015 16:31:30 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
As I tried to say, my take on this is that the problem should be dealt with at another level. Blanking/locking the screen is a desktop policy issue. It should not be left to the individual apps to decide whether to implement something reasonable or not. I would ask for a *global* switch (we can argue about what the default should be) that allows the user to inhibit blanking/locking while a video is running. It may be that the condition "video is running in some window" is not easy to detect reliably, and maybe that's why it hasn't been done for X Window environments, but we can dream.
Not sure about others, but I do employ feature of screen corners, with one configured to lock immediately, and other to stop screen from locking. Works fine IMHO.
On Mon, 2015-04-27 at 16:39 +0100, Piotr Gbyliczek wrote:
On Monday 27 April 2015 16:31:30 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
As I tried to say, my take on this is that the problem should be dealt with at another level. Blanking/locking the screen is a desktop policy issue. It should not be left to the individual apps to decide whether to implement something reasonable or not. I would ask for a *global* switch (we can argue about what the default should be) that allows the user to inhibit blanking/locking while a video is running. It may be that the condition "video is running in some window" is not easy to detect reliably, and maybe that's why it hasn't been done for X Window environments, but we can dream.
Not sure about others, but I do employ feature of screen corners, with one configured to lock immediately, and other to stop screen from locking. Works fine IMHO.
That's fine as long as a) you remember which corner is which, and b) it actually works correctly. In my experience this sort of thing is not reliable, i.e. sometimes you can be shoving the cursor into a corner without anything happening.
poc
On Monday 27 April 2015 20:03:16 Patrick O'Callaghan wrote:
Not sure about others, but I do employ feature of screen corners, with one configured to lock immediately, and other to stop screen from locking. Works fine IMHO.
That's fine as long as a) you remember which corner is which, and b) it actually works correctly. In my experience this sort of thing is not reliable, i.e. sometimes you can be shoving the cursor into a corner without anything happening.
Not my mileage, it works for me in F21.
As for remembering, aren't you now trying to justify your opinion rather than discuss it ? If one have problems remembering which corner does what, I think he has more pressing problems than screen locking. But if it helps, use left corner for "lock", and right for "restrict locking".
On Mon, 27 Apr 2015 12:57:19 +0200 Daniel Vrátil dvratil@redhat.com wrote:
I never had a problem with my screen autolocking when watching movies or playing games (what else are you people doing that you just stare into the screen for 5 minutes?) - and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto- lockscreen, the fix is to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
I beg to differ.
Aside from watching movies or playing games, some of us also tend to... well, for example... *read text*. (You know, that pesky old-style thing that modern young generations frown upon...)
A long, complicated, need-to-be-read-very-carefully kind of text --- that requires some meditating over each paragraph or even each sentence --- can appear in various circumstances and in various formats:
* on a web page (disable autolock for firefox?) * in a text editor (disable autolock for emacs?) * in a man page (disable autolock for man and less?) * in an e-mail client (disable autolock for kmail?) * in a pdf viewer (disable autolock for okular?) * and so on...
I guess you can see where this is going. If you've ever stared for 10 minutes at a screenful of C code in a text editor trying to debug it, or a complicated set of equations in a pdf trying to understand them, or a philosophy text on a website trying to contemplate over it, or a poem in a foreign language trying to practice reading it aloud, you should know what I am talking about.
Aside from reading text, one of the very frustrating things is a karaoke party, when the screenlock kicks in while everyone are watching the YouTube video on the screen and singing to it...
There are also many other examples, like an architect analyzing the blueprints or a technical drawing of the project displayed on the screen. Feel free to use your imagination.
All the software that displays this stuff is not broken, and should not be fixed. Instead, one should be able to easily disable screenlocking when it gets in one's way. Just put the damn on/off switch on the desktop. ;-)
Best, :-) Marko
Daniel Vrátil wrote:
We should *NOT* change the default behaviour. The message to users is "there is a lockscreen". That's it. That's the point. It's for new users (as well as many existing users) to realize that there is this important security measure. The only way to introduce an important feature to users is to enable it by default.
How is the "lock screen" entry in the menu not enough to show that the feature is there?
It's not to teach people to rely on their screen locking in 5 minutes, but to make sure the screen locks when you forget to. It's to safeguard your data when you /forget/ to lock the screen.
Except it doesn't help, at all. The attacker seeing you leave has a whopping 5 minutes to START attacking your machine. As soon as he/she did the first key press or mouse move (which takes less than 1 second), the timeout is reset.
There is one safe and secure way to lock your screen, it is to click on "lock screen" BEFORE you leave your computer.
I never had a problem with my screen autolocking when watching movies or playing games (what else are you people doing that you just stare into the screen for 5 minutes?) - and if you do, the fix is not to disable auto- lockscreen, the fix is to fix the broken software that does not set inhibition correctly.
Other replies in this thread have already explained why that approach does not scale. Pretty much ANY application would have to inhibit autolocking, at which point the feature becomes moot. There's hardly any application that cannot display lengthy text and/or multimedia content that takes minutes to read or listen to.
And for the argument that "it's just 30 seconds and few clicks to turn the autolock on again". Well it's also 30 seconds and a few clicks to turn it off.
My point is that it's 2 clicks, i.e. 1 second, to lock your screen securely (i.e., manually), so autolocking is useless.
Your annoyance does not outweight the added security the automatic lockscreen provides.
As I already explained, the automatic locking actually DECREASES security, because it mistrains users to not lock their screen manually.
Kevin Kofler
Well, I guess we should be thankful that we're talking screensaver locks, custom locales, etc. ;-) LOL...
From what I've seen so far, this is a much better transition than the move
from 3 to 4; and won't approach the level of controversy that arose from GNOME 3.
That said, default behavior shouldn't change unless there is a compelling reason to do so. There are enough things that are different without inflicting additional ones needlessly.
I don't know if I would go so far as to ask the Fedora packagers to restore the old default. That is just another thing for them to manage. The best place to request it would be upstream.