Screensaver to be or not to be (was: Re: Security Audit Request for Screenlocker Branch)

[Michael Pyne]

On Tuesday, October 11, 2011 20:54:42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is
> idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore)

With all due respect, and with full agreement that screen savers are not in 
general required to *protect the screen*... who are you to unilaterally 
declare what is and is not justifiable for a user to want to do with their own 
computer?

Do you mean that it is not justifiable by the reasoning of protecting the 
screen from damage? Because if so screensavers haven't been required for their 
original purpose for years and years now, that's nothing new.

Regards,
 - Michael Pyne
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: signature.asc
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 836 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://mail.kde.org/pipermail/kde-core-devel/attachments/20111011/af125530/attachment.sig>