3 ms·
I've been very happy with vlock. What hangups did you run into? I admit that it has required some scripting to avoid launching it twice concurrently (via xautol
by literalusername 15y ago
I've been very happy with vlock. What hangups did you run into? I admit that it has required some scripting to avoid launching it twice concurrently (via xautolock and pm-utils), and to clear its console before locking, but overall I find it secure, elegant, and worthwhile. What do you prefer about physlock?
- Adaptive 15y agoSuspend related problems. There's a thread of similar issues at https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=110459 https://bbs.archlinux.org/viewtopic.php?id=110459 physlock also eliminated some of the scaffolding code to deal with the multiple launches, etc. It's just a better tool solving the same problem. Recommended.
- literalusername 15y agoThanks for the recommendation. I'll definitely bear it in mind for future installs, but since I put the effort into configuring vlock well, I'd like to live with it for a while more. I'd actually already read that thread when configuring vlock on my current box, and I do chvt $(cat /tmp/console.pm) on resume. It's robust when configured well, but I can see the value in a locker that requires less configuration time.