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

[Alexander Neundorf]

On Wednesday 12 October 2011, Martin Gräßlin wrote:
> On Wednesday 12 October 2011 08:26:20 Torgny Nyblom wrote:
> > 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.
> 
> We have to design software which suits the majority of our users. On a
> mailing list like kde-core-devel I had hoped to not get answers like "I
> like this feature".

Developers are also users, and probably also like features of KDE :-)

Alex