Ticket #330 (closed defect: wontfix)
lock screen from panel needs multiple tries
| Reported by: | kaduk | Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Priority: | low | Milestone: | Fall 2009 Release |
| Component: | -- | Keywords: | |
| Cc: | Fixed in version: | ||
| Upstream bug: |
Description
If I choose "lock screen" from the power-button-icon dropdown on the panel, there is no effect the first time. Usually on the second attempt it will work, but sometimes it takes four or five tries to
see a response.
I suspect that this has to do with needing a background gnome-screensaver process before screensaving actually works, though I haven't really investigated what is going on.
Change History
comment:2 Changed 15 years ago by jdreed
Actually, doesn't WFM with my test account. I can reproduce this, but only if I try to lock the screen shortly after logging in. If I log in, and leave the machine alone for 5 minutes, and come back, and Lock Screen, it works.
I believe this is part of a bigger problem, namely that GNOME is still grinding away under the hood for a good minute or so even after the panel and Terminal window are available.
comment:3 Changed 15 years ago by andersk
I remember hearing that at some point an intentional delay was added to gnome-screensaver startup in order to help the rest of the desktop load faster.
comment:4 Changed 15 years ago by rbasch
There is indeed apparently a 30-second delay in gnome-settings-daemon before starting the screensaver. See:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/gnome-screensaver/+bug/354792
http://bugzilla.gnome.org/show_bug.cgi?id=582587
This has been effectively addressed in upstream gnome by removing the screensaver plugin from g.s.d., in favor of adding a .desktop file to autostart the screensaver:
This suggests a likely workaround for us, if we care enough not to wait for the fix to appear in Ubuntu.
comment:5 follow-up: ↓ 6 Changed 15 years ago by broder
I'm in favor of letting this trickle down to us from upstream, especially if it's the behavior on vanilla Jaunty, but I don't feel strongly about the issue.
I will point out that if this was only fixed in upstream GNOME in mid-July, it's very unlikely to make it into Karmic, but the change probably will make Karmic+1. So clusters wouldn't see this change until the summer 2010 deployment.
comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 Changed 15 years ago by andersk
Replying to broder:
I will point out that if this was only fixed in upstream GNOME in mid-July, it's very unlikely to make it into Karmic,
No, actually it’s very likely—and in fact, it already has.
The Ubuntu release cycle is closely tied to GNOME’s, so new GNOME developments tend to make it into Ubuntu very quickly.
WFM. Can anyone else reproduce?