On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 10:17 AM, drago01 <drago01@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: > On Tue, May 31, 2011 at 8:45 AM, Pasha R <pashar.ml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 6:27 PM, Jason D. Clinton <me@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>> On Mon, May 30, 2011 at 05:29, Pasha R <pashar.ml@xxxxxxxxx> wrote: >>>> Probably, inability to configure your screensaver is much more >>>> noticeable than inability to stop copy operation. :) >>> >>> Now *that* is intentional. >> >> Care to explain the logic behind this? Because it is really beyond my >> understanding. > > Screensavers has lost there use years ago. > With today's screens they don't really "save" anything but simply > waste power for no reason whatever. > > I never understand why anyone would want anything but "power down the > screen" in that case. What is the point of the fancy > graphics when no one is looking at it anyway? Well, some of my family members actually enjoy looking family pictures that picture screensaver was displaying. What is really makes me nervous is how easily people use these "no one" arguments. Have anyone really conducted such study? In my work, almost everyone configures screensaver to something different from system default one. So, somehow, they find an ability to configure screensaver actually useful. -- test mailing list test@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx To unsubscribe: https://admin.fedoraproject.org/mailman/listinfo/test
