Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)

From	Ottavio Caruso <ottavio2006-usenet2012@yahoo.com>
Newsgroups	linux.debian.user
Subject	Re: (suspend && lock screen) vs (lock screen && suspend)
Date	2022-05-13 12:30 +0200
Message-ID	<EmAIy-fbLn-9@gated-at.bofh.it> (permalink)
References	<EmgJP-eYY0-15@gated-at.bofh.it> <EmgJP-eYY0-13@gated-at.bofh.it> <EmhcR-eZ7z-1@gated-at.bofh.it> <Emk13-f0Og-9@gated-at.bofh.it> <EmkDL-f1gq-3@gated-at.bofh.it>
Organization	linux.* mail to news gateway

Show all headers | View raw

On 12/05/2022 18:10, David Wright wrote:
> On Thu 12 May 2022 at 17:34:55 (+0100), Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>> On 12/05/2022 14:31, Greg Wooledge wrote:
>>> On Thu, May 12, 2022 at 02:06:24PM +0100, Ottavio Caruso wrote:
>>>> #!/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?
> 
>> "race condition" or not, it doesn't  make sense that, upon resume, the
>> screen lock pauses for 10 seconds and then reactivates.
> 
> https://github.com/mate-desktop/mate-screensaver/issues/231

Thanks. Well spotted. However, I tried the workarounds suggested over 
there and it still delays a few seconds upon resume. It's definitely a 
Mate bug, then.


-- 
Ottavio Caruso

A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text.
Q: Why is top-posting such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing in e-mail?

Back to linux.debian.user | Previous | Next — Previous 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