When attempting to go into Settings and selecting Light Locker Settings, the screen appears to flash with some window but nothing stays open on the display.
Unlikely to be a window manager issue, what happens if you run the utility from the command line?
Sorry, but don't know the command. Neither light_locker nor light-locker worked.
$ git clone https://github.com/maexbower/light-locker-settings.git $ cd light-locker-settings/ OR $ curl -JLO https://github.com/maexbower/light-locker-settings/archive/master.zip $ unzip light-locker-settings-master.zip $ cd light-locker-settings-master/ $ make $ su # make install # exit $ /usr/local/bin/light-locker-settings Besides, if 'light-locker' is running, you can reach almost the same settings within 'xfce4-power-manager-settings' https://goo.gl/WFGW4h
Okay, here are a couple facts. 1. Does not need a gui if it is built into XFCE settings manager, 2. Something flashes on the screen, so there is a problem that needs to be fixed, rather than adding additional overhead, which would only confuse the issue, 3. If it is running is a big question.
(In reply to KitchM from comment #4) > Okay, here are a couple facts. > 1. Does not need a gui if it is built into XFCE settings manager, light-locker[-settings] can be run under other Desktop Environments, besides, "settings managers" and "GUIs" are not mutually exclusive. > 2. Something flashes on the screen, so there is a problem that needs to be > fixed, rather than adding additional overhead, which would only confuse the > issue, > 3. If it is running is a big question. Can you record the screen session with a camera during the "Something flashes on the screen"? I'm really sorry if this is another overhead for you, I mean to an issue.
(In reply to KitchM from comment #4) > Okay, here are a couple facts. Those are not facts, merely your opinion. > 1. Does not need a gui if it is built into XFCE settings manager, Upstream doesn't ship light-locker settings, so if anything, this is a downstream issue, not xfce. Besides, the settings manager can launch separate settings as well, don't let the "it's in xfce settings so it must be xfce" fools you. AFAIK there is no light-locker settings in https://git.xfce.org/ nor in xfce settings manager upstream, this is why I asked you to try to run the app on your side. > 2. Something flashes on the screen, so there is a problem that needs to be > fixed, This is obvious and goes without saying, but to fix a bug we need to identify it, again, as we do not ship light-locker with xfce, we cannot do that for you, i.e. we need your help. > rather than adding additional overhead, which would only confuse the > issue, This is basic bug analysis, not overhead nor additional confusion. Anyway, this is not the window manager so to avoid confusion, I'll put this bug in needinfo until I get more tangible data from your side. > 3. If it is running is a big question. Only you can tell, I am not using Ubuntu and light-locker doesn't ship by default on my distribution.
Poma, you are the one who mentioned adding a gui, not I. Therefore your comment "light-locker[-settings] can be run under other Desktop Environments, besides, "settings managers" and "GUIs" are not mutually exclusive." goes without saying and has no bearing on this issue. Regarding your suggestion, perhaps I could run some sort of desktop recorder and try and capture the flash. That may be doable, depending upon the speed of the flash versus the recorders frame rate capabilities. I'll look into it. Olivier, 1. It is true that Xfce is a gui environment, and that the settings manager is part of that, and that adding yet another gui does nothing to help the situation. Reasonable people call that a fact. 2. There is indeed something that flashes on the screen, is useless and is needing to be fixed. Again, reasonable people call that a fact. 3. Determining if indeed the program is already running is indeed a very useful piece of information in determining the root of the problem. That may be considered an opinion, but in my experience in these matters, it is not unimportant. 4. ""it's in xfce settings so it must be xfce" fools you." does not apply. While you may have missed the obvious issue, no one mentioned anything about that, and your assumption has evidently confused you about it. 5. When you use "AFAIK", you are stating that you are not sure of what you say. That is not helpful. Only contribute if you have a fact to offer that will help solve the problem as reported. 6. If you had stated initially that Xfce does not come with light locker I believe that most people would have seen that fact as an important, foundational and much needed piece of information directly bearing upon the diagnostic process in this particular situation. If you wanted to assume something, you might have wanted to assume that perhaps the the reporter did not know that, and maybe that you should have even gone so far as to ask. But of course, we must begin with determining if that piece of information is indeed true. 7. Another mistaken opinion of yours is "This is basic bug analysis, not overhead nor additional confusion." Adding another piece of software to the environment cannot be helpful because, A. the Xfce environment was designed to reduce overhead, B. is not needed to diagnose the problem, C. and always runs the risk of adding complexity that will, in all likelihood, confuse the results of the diagnostic process. Regardless of what you say, you obviously do not know basic bug analysis. You are full of ideas, but fail to supply the requested information (see comment 2 above). Maybe you should focus on that, instead of being critical of the viewpoint of the one who actually brought the issue to light. At the end of the day you must determine if you wish to be a sympathetic helper or just a know-it-all who's questionable help no one needs. I'm the one suffering with the problem on my computer, not you. You were never required to offer your opinion. You need not go out of your way to do so, and I am sorry you felt such compulsion.
(In reply to KitchM from comment #7) tl;dr; This is bugzilla, not a forum or a mailing list. just reopen this bugzilla when you can provide the requested info (comment 1), meanwhile I can't be bothered.
Do not try to throw this upon me. You supply the requested information in comment 2. Stop being lazy.
(In reply to KitchM from comment #9) > Do not try to throw this upon me. You supply the requested information in > comment 2. Stop being lazy. Yo're missing the point here. You filed this bug for xfwm4/settings whereas this has absolutely *nothing* to do with the window manager settings, for a component (light-locker) that we (upstream xfce) do not even ship. So I'd rahter have you provide some technical data and stop posting long diatribes in this bugzilla. If you're not technical enough to provide the information needed, I suggest you ask for help first on the forum for your distribution, to see if other people using the same software (like light-locker) have the same issue, and if they can help you finding how to run the light-locker settings from the command line to capture some error, something, anything... Meanwhile I (xfce developer, working on the window managre xfwm4) cannot help you, I simply don't have *any* technical data to investigate your issue. You can reopen the bug as much as you want, I will simply ignore it until you provide the technical data requested.
You prove my points. "If you're not technical enough to provide the information needed," Isn't that the purpose of asking for help here? Of course it is. Obviously you cannot give any more than I can, since you have not provided as requested. Which begs the question, Why are you here. Complaining about someone who posts in the wrong section instead of kindly directing to the correct place (as I've pointed out before) shows you do not belong in a position of offering support toward others. You obviously don't know how to do it. You should stick to your "programming". Thank you for admitting your mistakes, even if you attempt to obfuscate.
You miss the point, again... This is bugzilla, not a place to ask for help, but a tool to report bugs with factual data.
It is you who missed the point. You were asked how to get the information you requested, and you refused then and still do. So, if you wish to be part of a bug reporting system, then do your part. Bugs cannot be solved if the one who wishes specific information fails in define and explaining how. Ignoring that simple fact does not justify your position. You could have either kindly pointed out how to acquire what you wanted, or you could have kindly stated that it was the wrong place, or you could have butted out. You did neither.
Pomo, I tried it at 99 frames per second, but the recording would not catch it. That is as fast as the desktop recorder would go. Thanks for the idea anyway.
(In reply to KitchM from comment #14) > Pomo, I tried it at 99 frames per second, but the recording would not catch > it. That is as fast as the desktop recorder would go. > > Thanks for the idea anyway. Sometimes software tools for recording/capturing/grabbing screen aren't sufficient to catch what is actually happening on the screen, what is visible only to you as an outside observer, or device with a camera e.g. (smart)phone.
Sean Davis and Simon Steinbeiß are members of the "Light Locker Settings Team" https://launchpad.net/~light-locker-settings-team/+members#active as well as members of “Xubuntu Developers” https://launchpad.net/~xubuntu-dev/+members#active and they are Xfce Core developers https://www.xfce.org/about/credits Perhaps they can better instruct you how to solve your problem.
Thanks, Pomo. I agree, it is extremely difficult to catch something like this. I am also wondering if the playback was not fine enough to handle the visualization even if the event was captured in the first place. As to the rest, there appears to be an unconfirmed idea that Light Locker does not come with Xfce. Also, that it is not a bug. Further, there is no test for it. And finally, this is the wrong department. In any case, I am concerned that something is allowed to tie into the Settings Manager, because it does not seem to work properly. This is usually because of poor documentation on how to program that tie-in, bad programming in the add-on, non-standard methodologies at either end, or some other oddity, to name but a few I have seen over the years, The reason we use Xfce is because it is supposed to be fast and robust. Don't you just hate it when people screw around with a good thing? I will go to the Ubuntu folks and try to find a way to remove the silly thing, among other weirdness.
@KitchM, not sure what version of light-locker-settings you're running on what version of Ubuntu, but in any case it's not installed by default in Xubuntu anymore for some releases. We've integrated light-locker with xfce4-power-manager (by adding a tab conditionally if light-locker is available). Anyway, you can uninstall light-locker-settings if it doesn't work for you and set the gsettings via the terminal, you can submit a bugreport on launchpad (where light-locker-settings lives) or use a different locker. Regarding Xfce's settings manager: *any* application can show up there, it's a question of what attributes you set in the .desktop file.
@Simon, I don't usually forget to list all the environmental details. Somehow I forgot to mention Xubuntu 14.04.5. Sorry about that. (Hand slaps forehead.) Okay, but I thought Light Locker was not an Xfce thing? Are you saying it is? Since I don't use a screen locker, I have no use for it anyway. Still, it does bother one that it is not working as it should. And, no, there is no tab for it in the power manager applet under settings manager. (It exists, else it would not flash on the screen or be in the settings manager.) Also, as I understand you, the settings manager "area" is just a corral for whatever is in .desktop. How is that a good idea? I mean, you all must have had some picture in your minds of a particular purpose that the average user does not see. I always appreciate the enlightenment. Similarly, I can't get rid of mail reader without eliminating thunar and other useful things. I must admit I can't comprehend the tie-in. Some of the relationships in Xfce are confusing and appear non sequitur.
BTW, I don't know where to find light locker version. However, light-locker-settings is listed in the package manager as installed and 1.2.1-0ubuntu1.1.
As mentioned previously I'm also a Xubuntu developer and (in the meantime: inactive) contributor to light-locker-settings, so out of courtesy I decided to reply. And to be clear: no, light-locker is not an Xfce project (even though the people who contributed are also Xfce devs). I presumed you were on 16.04, so yes, in 14.04 this feature was not present in xfce4-power-manager. If you don't need a locker, just uninstall light-locker*.
It was suggested that I use "sudo apt-get purge light-locker", and it worked fine. No need to have it if it doesn't work right, if you know what i mean. Thanks for the courtesy.