lør, 13.11.2004 kl. 17.56 skrev seth vidal: > On Sat, 2004-11-13 at 16:51 +0100, Kyrre Ness Sjobak wrote: > > fre, 12.11.2004 kl. 21.00 skrev seth vidal: > > > > No but you might find that some words are found "unprofessional" for 95% > > > > of the userbase - even if they personally don't care. > > > > > > What if I happen to be in the world's oldest profession? > > > > > > > You are not. Unless the physics dept. at duke is something else than i > > might believe. > > > > > I think you're generalizing overly much and making far too sweeping > > > assumptions about mores and values. > > > > > > -sv > > > > I might. But who will miss it? > > I will. > > you know how to use yum to get them :P > > > It is a reason Apple and even M$ don't ship screensavers with words that > > might be misunderstood. > > I thought it was b/c they weren't nearly as interesting. > Do a nice screensaver need to contain anything that might get misjugded? But can we *please* stop this war? It is getting mor stupid by each post. No-body is suggesting to remove everything funny (such as what should happen to anybody configuring gdm to run as root, according to the gdmsetup help file), but simply: -removing screensavers containing words which can be misjudged -splitting the screensaver rpm into a "fit for you grandma's computer"- and a "needs hw GL"- package - so that you could kill the last one easily. -- Fedora-desktop-list@xxxxxxxxxx http://www.redhat.com/mailman/listinfo/fedora-desktop-list
