(suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

From	Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	(suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)
Date	2022-05-12 15:10 +0200
Message-ID	<EmgJP-eYY0-13@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<EmgJP-eYY0-15@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

[Originally posted to comp.unix.shell but no replies there]

$ uname -a
Linux e130 5.16.0-0.bpo.4-amd64 #1 SMP PREEMPT Debian 5.16.12-1~bpo11+1 
(2022-03-08) x86_64 GNU/Linux
$ cat /etc/debian_version
11.2




Hi,

Not sure if this just a command invocation problem or there are other 
issues at hand (say, power management, etc) but... I have a script that 
binds to 'CTRL + SHIFT + S':


$ cat opt/bin/lock-suspend
#!/bin/sh
systemctl suspend && mate-screensaver-command  -l


This one seems to work, however I would have thought that the logical 
sequence would be:

mate-screensaver-command  -l && systemctl suspend

that is, a) lock screen; b) suspend; c) resume with lock screen on.

Instead, if I use the latter syntax, upon resuming, there is a 10 second 
delay before locking the screen, which is not ideal for obvious privacy 
reasons.

Any input on that?

-- 
Ottavio Caruso

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Next in thread | Find similar | Unroll thread

Thread

(suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend) Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-12 15:10 +0200
  Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend) Greg Wooledge <greg@wooledge.org> - 2022-05-12 15:40 +0200
    Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend) Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-12 18:40 +0200
      Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend) David Wright <deblis@lionunicorn.co.uk> - 2022-05-12 19:20 +0200
        Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend) Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com> - 2022-05-13 12:30 +0200

csiph-web