On 18/11/11 02:33, Dylan McCall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Dylan McCall <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that LightDM should probably fall back gracefully if it
>> can't find the background image for a user (and if it doesn't that's
>> almost definitely a bug). So, if you're on a multi-user machine and
>> you're concerned about other people seeing your stuff, the best
>> solution (and the one we support) is to change the accessibility of
>> the file itself.
> Oh, when I say "we support" I of course mean the royal "we", where the
> idea of changing file permissions (or using encryption) to keep
> another user from accessing a file is an approach that is generally
> encouraged and supported since it's solving the problem closer to its
> root.
> Sorry if I confused anyone, and sorry for the extra noise. Just
> thought I'd make that oddity in my comment clear ;)
>
On 18/11/11 02:33, Dylan McCall wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 17, 2011 at 1:52 PM, Dylan McCall <email address hidden> wrote:
>> Keep in mind that LightDM should probably fall back gracefully if it
>> can't find the background image for a user (and if it doesn't that's
>> almost definitely a bug). So, if you're on a multi-user machine and
>> you're concerned about other people seeing your stuff, the best
>> solution (and the one we support) is to change the accessibility of
>> the file itself.
> Oh, when I say "we support" I of course mean the royal "we", where the
> idea of changing file permissions (or using encryption) to keep
> another user from accessing a file is an approach that is generally
> encouraged and supported since it's solving the problem closer to its
> root.
> Sorry if I confused anyone, and sorry for the extra noise. Just
> thought I'd make that oddity in my comment clear ;)
>
It wasn't noise, it was the best suggestion yet.
Mark