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

[Torgny Nyblom]

On Tuesday 11 October 2011 20.54.42 Thomas Lübking wrote:
> Am Tue, 11 Oct 2011 18:02:32 +0200
> 
> schrieb Torgny Nyblom <nyblom at kde.org>:
> > Screensaver is bling only
> 
> No, "screensaver hacks are bling only", a "screensaver" is a
> software relic.

(Semantics)

> The key aspect is "when and why is there eye-candy".
> You can still run all scsreensavers to look at them, they're just
> ordinary single window applications.
> You can even run them fullscreen. No problem.
> 
> BUT: running them automatically because you're away and the system is
> idle is simply not a justifiable (anymore),

Why? I like this feature.

> and that was the concept of a
> "screensaver" which was just 10 years ago, but is no way today

Agreed.

> - and on
> battery driven systems actually must be tagged stupid, sorry.

But on non battery powered devices?

/Regards
Torgny