RFC: Disabling blinking cursor by default

[Callum Lerwick]

On Fri, 2009-02-06 at 09:57 -0500, Dimi Paun wrote:
> Look: if a proposal is forwarded to change dubious defaults you
> are told to come back with a rigorous scientific  usability study
> showing X and Y.

This isn't a usability argument. It's a power saving argument. The main
*counter* argument seems to be usability.

> However, if someone from Red Hat wakes up one morning and decides
> to change a default that will affect _everybody_ using a computer,
> they do it without a moment's notice.

That's the privilege of being an upstream developer. Cry some more.

> And we are supposed to swallow
> it as such because someone came up with a *totally* unsupported
> number of trees saved(1). 

No, it's because someone directly measured a reduction in power usage.
Quite scientific, really.

> 2. Yes, it's political, based on the incorrect assumption that
>    we're gonna save trees.

No, the argument only got wrapped in plolitics because some people seem
to think that's a good idea. And you're only continuing it.
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 197 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part
Url : http://lists.fedoraproject.org/pipermail/devel/attachments/20090207/9f9ebc39/attachment.bin