| 2025-10-24 04:04:47 +0200 | amenonsen | (~amenonsen@pitta.toroid.org) (Remote host closed the connection) |
| 2025-10-24 04:18:12 +0200 | amenonsen | (~amenonsen@pitta.toroid.org) amenonsen |
| 2025-10-24 04:28:52 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870926.versanet.de) (Ping timeout: 260 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 04:35:14 +0200 | td_ | (~td@2001:9e8:19e0:2a00:334f:6dc4:3cb7:9653) |
| 2025-10-24 06:27:35 +0200 | ChubaDuba | (~ChubaDuba@5.166.232.68) ChubaDuba |
| 2025-10-24 06:28:48 +0200 | ChubaDuba | (~ChubaDuba@5.166.232.68) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-10-24 07:01:15 +0200 | Lears | (~Leary@user/Leary/x-0910699) Leary |
| 2025-10-24 07:01:54 +0200 | Leary | (~Leary@user/Leary/x-0910699) (Ping timeout: 256 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 07:02:56 +0200 | Lears | Leary |
| 2025-10-24 07:14:40 +0200 | L29Ah | (~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-10-24 07:39:22 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 08:23:01 +0200 | ft | (~ft@p4fc2aaeb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Quit: leaving) |
| 2025-10-24 08:29:28 +0200 | <Enrico63> | Leary, I ended up trying mpv. Thanks for the suggestion! |
| 2025-10-24 08:33:39 +0200 | <Leary> | Enrico63: You got the wrong guy, though I do second it. |
| 2025-10-24 08:34:23 +0200 | <Enrico63> | Oh, yeah, sorry, it was @L29Ah |
| 2025-10-24 08:44:51 +0200 | <Enrico63> | Anyway, can anybody help me choose a session lock? Not that it matters much, I'm not gonna leave my laptop unattended very often (and that's why I haven't used it for long, the laptop is always locked in my room). On https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Session_lock I see several listed, but then if I go look at each of them, I'm not sure how to |
| 2025-10-24 08:44:52 +0200 | <Enrico63> | decide. For instance: `xsecurelock` claims to be more secure than others (at least that's how I interpret the readme), but the last commit on github is 2 years ago, whereas xss-lock has commits from last month, but hasn't got such claims about security. |
| 2025-10-24 09:21:34 +0200 | <deebo> | what i've done for years is just use a gnome2 fork and replace the window manager with xmonad, previously for example xfce but for quite a few years now mate |
| 2025-10-24 09:37:28 +0200 | yecinem_ | (~yecinem@p200300ee0f0876008e234cd803b8a022.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) |
| 2025-10-24 09:59:45 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 10:06:43 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 10:56:50 +0200 | <haskellbridge> | <Solid> Enrico63: Nothing better than (even from a security perspective, AFAIK) than goold old xscreensaver :) |
| 2025-10-24 11:47:50 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 11:57:42 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-002-201-020-196.002.201.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:00:45 +0200 | sajenim | (~sajenim@user/sajenim) sajenim |
| 2025-10-24 12:00:47 +0200 | L29Ah | (~L29Ah@wikipedia/L29Ah) L29Ah |
| 2025-10-24 12:04:40 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-002-201-020-196.002.201.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 12:04:58 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-002-201-020-196.002.201.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:07:37 +0200 | xjcj1 | (~xjcj@dynamic-176-001-198-020.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:10:19 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-002-201-020-196.002.201.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 12:10:46 +0200 | xjcj1 | (~xjcj@dynamic-176-001-198-020.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-10-24 12:12:24 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 12:12:25 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:13:09 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-10-24 12:21:32 +0200 | xjcj8 | (~xjcj@dynamic-176-001-198-020.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:21:33 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 12:22:02 +0200 | xjcj8 | (~xjcj@dynamic-176-001-198-020.176.1.pool.telefonica.de) (Client Quit) |
| 2025-10-24 12:22:19 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:32:25 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Ping timeout: 250 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 12:36:36 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 12:48:41 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) |
| 2025-10-24 12:55:07 +0200 | xjcj | (~xjcj@dslb-084-061-254-103.084.061.pools.vodafone-ip.de) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 13:13:24 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 13:53:26 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 15:13:18 +0200 | ft | (~ft@p4fc2aaeb.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) ft |
| 2025-10-24 16:59:47 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 17:15:06 +0200 | MrElendig | (~Urist@archlinux/op/MrElendig) (Quit: hail hydra) |
| 2025-10-24 17:16:00 +0200 | MrElendig | (~Urist@archlinux/op/MrElendig) MrElendig |
| 2025-10-24 17:16:05 +0200 | <liskin> | geekosaur: is wayback reputable enough? |
| 2025-10-24 17:18:03 +0200 | <liskin> | Enrico63 seems to have left and I don't remember how to ask lambdabot, so I'll just ramble into the void: xss-lock and xsecurelock work together, and xscreensaver is an alternative that replaces both |
| 2025-10-24 17:18:43 +0200 | <geekosaur> | I think the problem there is that, while Wayland has the potential to fix several X11 problems such as different screen resolutions working together properly, it doesn't actually do so. that said, if you're implementing X11 APIs on top of it you wouldn't be able to take advantage even if your Wayland impl did it properly |
| 2025-10-24 17:18:59 +0200 | <geekosaur> | it's "!ask" or "!tell" |
| 2025-10-24 17:19:10 +0200 | <geekosaur> | er, @ or ? in place of ! |
| 2025-10-24 17:19:14 +0200 | <geekosaur> | wrong bot 🙂 |
| 2025-10-24 17:19:32 +0200 | <geekosaur> | (I use the one in #crawl more often these days 🙂 ) |
| 2025-10-24 17:20:21 +0200 | <liskin> | xscreensaver used to be insecure because too much stuff was in the same process and a crash would unlock the screen, jwz has since fixed it |
| 2025-10-24 17:20:50 +0200 | <geekosaur> | xlock / xautolock is another combo intended to work together |
| 2025-10-24 17:21:01 +0200 | <liskin> | geekosaur: my response is to your question about reputable X11 fork |
| 2025-10-24 17:21:08 +0200 | <geekosaur> | but xlock still has the everything-in-one-process issue |
| 2025-10-24 17:21:20 +0200 | <liskin> | Unless you wanted that fork to solve the resolution problem |
| 2025-10-24 17:21:33 +0200 | <geekosaur> | liskin, it's not a fork, it's an implementation of X11 APIs on top of a Wayland backend |
| 2025-10-24 17:21:50 +0200 | <geekosaur> | "experimental X11 compatibility layer" |
| 2025-10-24 17:22:10 +0200 | <liskin> | Which is... fine? Xwayland is maintained, and wayback is maintained. What's missing. |
| 2025-10-24 17:23:30 +0200 | <geekosaur> | the topic was forking Xorg specifically |
| 2025-10-24 17:23:48 +0200 | <geekosaur> | which would be less experimental than trying to rebuild X11 on top of Wayland |
| 2025-10-24 17:24:09 +0200 | <liskin> | But they're not rebuilding it. |
| 2025-10-24 17:24:19 +0200 | <liskin> | It's just a rootful Xwayland |
| 2025-10-24 17:24:47 +0200 | <liskin> | A little bit of glue code between well maintained components such as Xwayland |
| 2025-10-24 17:25:20 +0200 | <liskin> | Exactly what I said we could do as an interim solution in like 2021 or something |
| 2025-10-24 17:25:53 +0200 | <liskin> | They just beat me to it (not that I was going to race them or anything - xserver works just fine for me) |
| 2025-10-24 17:30:57 +0200 | <geekosaur> | Also I'm a bit skittish about it because of my experience with XQuartz, which did the same on top of macOS |
| 2025-10-24 17:31:08 +0200 | <geekosaur> | It worked poorly |
| 2025-10-24 17:31:37 +0200 | <liskin> | Did it? |
| 2025-10-24 17:31:48 +0200 | <liskin> | I think xquartz was rootless? |
| 2025-10-24 17:42:42 +0200 | <geekosaur> | supported both modes |
| 2025-10-24 17:43:28 +0200 | <geekosaur> | the biggest issue was the Core Graphics folks constantly changing or removing APIs needed for XQuartz to work… and to be quite honest I wouldn't bet on the core Wayland devs doing the same thing |
| 2025-10-24 17:50:28 +0200 | yecinem_ | (~yecinem@p200300ee0f0876008e234cd803b8a022.dip0.t-ipconnect.de) (Ping timeout: 246 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 19:19:56 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 19:28:04 +0200 | <Enrico63> | geekosaur, regarding my querstion, I've read through the logs. To summarize, xss-lock / xsecurelock is a solution, xlock / xautolock is another solution, whereas xscreensaver is an alternative solution on its own. Of these, xscreensaver used to be insecure but that's not the case anymore. xlock is still insecure, for the same reason xscreensaver |
| 2025-10-24 19:28:05 +0200 | <Enrico63> | was. Is it correct? |
| 2025-10-24 19:28:36 +0200 | <Enrico63> | Oh, liskin is online too :) |
| 2025-10-24 19:29:10 +0200 | <geekosaur> | Pretty much, yes |
| 2025-10-24 19:37:00 +0200 | <Enrico63> | But so I'd expect xlock and xss-lock to be listed together, as they are in https://wiki.archlinux.org/title/Session_lock, but xsecurelock is listed with them. Ok, I see why you say "pretty much". From https://github.com/google/xsecurelock I see that xsecurelock can be used with xscreensaver too. |
| 2025-10-24 19:57:31 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 20:19:06 +0200 | mathstuf | (~mathstuf@c-73-130-147-217.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) |
| 2025-10-24 20:20:34 +0200 | <mathstuf> | hi, im looking at splitting LayoutClass into a PureLayout class so that i can use the pure layouts to just tile some rectangles (the goal is to use xmonad layouts for river, see https://github.com/xmonad/xmonad/issues/525) |
| 2025-10-24 20:21:35 +0200 | <mathstuf> | however, when i make `instance PureLayout l a => LayoutClass l a`, i get overlapping instances (after adding UndecidableInstances extension) |
| 2025-10-24 20:22:15 +0200 | <mathstuf> | perhaps i should instead make `PureLayout` and `XLayout` and then have a class that is implemented for each? |
| 2025-10-24 20:22:28 +0200 | <mathstuf> | but i think that is still has issues because nothing stops a type from implementing both PureLayout and XLayout |
| 2025-10-24 20:23:23 +0200 | <mathstuf> | (my haskell is very rusty at this point) |
| 2025-10-24 20:31:55 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) Enrico63 |
| 2025-10-24 20:55:30 +0200 | Enrico63 | (~Enrico63@host-82-59-110-109.retail.telecomitalia.it) (Quit: Client closed) |
| 2025-10-24 21:49:04 +0200 | yauhsien | (~Yau-Hsien@36-229-172-92.dynamic-ip.hinet.net) |
| 2025-10-24 21:51:02 +0200 | yauhsien | (~Yau-Hsien@36-229-172-92.dynamic-ip.hinet.net) (Read error: Connection reset by peer) |
| 2025-10-24 21:51:37 +0200 | yauhsien | (~Yau-Hsien@36-229-172-92.dynamic-ip.hinet.net) yauhsien |
| 2025-10-24 22:04:35 +0200 | td_ | (~td@2001:9e8:19e0:2a00:334f:6dc4:3cb7:9653) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 22:06:37 +0200 | td_ | (~td@i53870931.versanet.de) td_ |
| 2025-10-24 22:23:56 +0200 | yauhsien | (~Yau-Hsien@36-229-172-92.dynamic-ip.hinet.net) (Quit: Leaving) |
| 2025-10-24 22:31:58 +0200 | mathstuf | (~mathstuf@c-73-130-147-217.hsd1.pa.comcast.net) (Ping timeout: 244 seconds) |
| 2025-10-24 23:24:57 +0200 | <geekosaur> | !tell mathstuf `LayoutClass l a` matches anything and would overlap with every other instance. The context does not act as a constraint on matching instances! It's only checked after choosing an instance. |