While it is an amusing trick, I’m not sure a how-to for making MS Windows screensavers would really fit with Fedora Magazine’s goal of promoting FOSS, even if it is a Fedora Linux themed screensaver. I think we would rather people installed Fedora Linux directly on the hardware so that their experience would be less tainted and not restricted by other software.
The idea is that a business might want to replace the Debian swirl with their own logo, and then start distributing screensavers as marketing novelties. My build has 2 screensavers each of which fits conveniently on a DVD (!). This could result in quite a large increase in open source adoption.
Along the way to building the screensaver, an ISO is built which you can write to a USB key with Rufus ( windows ) or balena-etcher ( Linux ) and get a proper Linux.
I’m a little confused by the stated motives in the article you linked:
So why should you read this article? Why, indeed, should I write it? My motive is to help remove two obstacles to the wider adoption of free and open source software.
Those obstacles are:
The perceived difficulty and disruptive effects of installing Linux
The uncertainty of hardware support for Linux
Creating and installing a MS Windows screensaver is not equal to installing Linux. It is not clear to me how installing a MS Windows screensaver would convince people that installing a real Linux distro on real hardware would be easy?
Likewise, running “Linux” as a screensaver process on MS Windows would prove nothing about Linux’s hardware support. It would be the MS Windows kernel that would be handling all the real hardware interaction in that configuration.
I do get that just showing Linux to people who normally use MS Windows would serve as a promotion, but I’d be a little worried that those same people might think the Linux screensaver is Linux (it is not).
It’s a novel idea, but I think we want to pass on this one.