Screen Saver Bug # 560298

[Tom H]

On Mon, Apr 12, 2010 at 8:23 AM, Karl Larsen <klarsen1 at gmail.com> wrote:
> On 04/11/2010 11:31 PM, Tom H wrote:
>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Karl Larsen<klarsen1 at gmail.com>  wrote:
>>
>>> On 04/11/2010 07:54 PM, Tom H wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sun, Apr 11, 2010 at 8:56 PM, Karl Larsen<klarsen1 at gmail.com>    wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Just because you are MUCH smarter than I, I do have a problem
>>>>> with this. By the way the bug is alive and a couple of Ubuntu experts
>>>>> are verifying what I wrote. I know they will. If it was you, you would
>>>>> try to hide this. It has happened many times. But not this time.
>>>>>
>>>> The bug was updated because of standard triage not developer interest.
>>>>
>>>> If I were you, I would apologize for wasting the developers' time and
>>>> close it. I have just installed Karmic and it has exactly the same
>>>> screensaver setting (and Jaunty, Intrepid, Hardy, ... probably had it
>>>> too); a five-minute grace period is almost too long from a security
>>>> perspective.
>>>>
>>> My computer is in my shop and no person can even see it. I have all
>>> my versions turned off because I retired with a good nest egg 20 years
>>> ago and there is no one trying to find out my information.  The Version
>>> Lucid 10.04 is the FIRST version to set up the default wait time to 5
>>> minutes, and set the requirement for a password, and use a see-through
>>> screen saver. This IS NEW!
>>>
>> I have just rechecked the settings. You are right, in Karmic, the
>> screensaver kicks in after five minutes but it does not lock the
>> screen.
>>
>> It is not a bug though but good design whether your computer is locked
>> in your basement or not. Your bug will either be ignored or closed as
>> invalid.
>>
> Well it appears the REAL problem was the need to provide a
> password every 5 minutes. That is quite too much. Yes it is possible
> since the earlier versions did not require a password, they were just a
> minor problem until you discovered you could turn off the problem.
>
> I can see just, that business people at work would want to make
> their computers tamper proof or their laptops the same. Ubuntu lets you
> do this. I object to it being set up this way as a default setup.

You must have noticed the outcry about the window button placement.
The 1,00s of people who complained here, on the dev-discuss list, on
Launchpad, in articles and blogs all across the net were unable to
reverse Canonical's stance. What makes you think that one person
disagreeing with an even more easily changeable default will have any
effect?! This is lunacy. Especially since this change makes a Ubuntu
default install more secure.