[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Pls i want good ubuntu notifs -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs.l

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Attachment added: "KDE in action (green circle moves signaling remaining time)" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/notify-osd/+bug/390508/+attachment/5457080/+files/expiring_notify.png -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribe

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Hello from 2020. Under KDE Plasma those timeouts work perfectly (including delicate way of signalling that they are on their way towards expiring) and I use them gladly. Regarding purpose: I frequently use notify-send in my scripting to trigger notification that some build, tests, compilation, or

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Hello from 2020, the man for notify-send now indeed has a note for the -t parameter that "Ubuntu's Notify OSD and GNOME Shell both ignore this parameter.". However "notify-send --help" still shows the old message, which had me wasting the last hour trying to figure out what was wrong. After read

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Changed in: notify-osd (Debian) Status: Unknown => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notificat

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Bug watch added: Debian Bug tracker #664905 https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=664905 ** Also affects: notify-osd (Debian) via https://bugs.debian.org/cgi-bin/bugreport.cgi?bug=664905 Importance: Unknown Status: Unknown -- You received this bug notification beca

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Colter, I addressed your use case in my 2009-10-02 comment: to reiterate, you can’t reliably use an asynchronous notification API to give synchronous feedback on events like volume/brightness change, because your notification might be queued behind dozens of others. If it happens to work with notif

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Hey hey, one more person from 2017 crying out to get this bug fixed/feature implemented. Use Case: My friend and I are trying to display some volume/brightness notifications for about 200millis on our franken-Chromebooks that we wiped and on which we installed Ubuntu. Alas, it seems the current

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>mpt Glad to see this bug is still bothering you, because it still bothers us. bug 420583's proposal great, and it's been sitting there for seven years. Seven years ago there was an idea that could probably have avoided all this trouble. Did the x time per n characters algorithm ever really get

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I guess “Did I miss something?” was a rhetorical question, since Nicholas did not subscribe to receive any answer. But he missed three things. First, as I wrote on 2015-02-06, I fixed the man page myself (bug 533631). Trivial bug fixes are seldom backported. Second, I did not cite the possibility o

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

So... after ~6.5 years; 267 posts; and several thousand lines of unhappy, frustrated, and/or annoyed feedback, my man page is still lying to me about -t actually doing something and the devs are now adding "you can use someone else's software or write your own" to justify their design decision. Di

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

"unknown", as I said two years ago, we did not "remove support": Notify OSD never implemented the parameter in the first place. And it is also incorrect -- and, as I suspect you know, extremely silly -- to say that the design takes away your freedom: you have the freedom to use mate- notification-d

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

The design decision to remove support for the options are undermining the effort by developers who put it there and the whole (IMHO correct) thought process behind their work. The incorrect design decision is taking away my *freedom* to use these options as i see fit. Do you really want to take

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

However, it's the people *not* represented on launchpad that you're *even more* wrong about. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout paramete

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>>mpt Just because I don't agree with you doesn't mean I don't understand your lexicon. I just think you're wrong. The group disproportionately represented on launchpad is not who you think it is. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Since queqotion and Kent both misunderstood the same word: "Disproportionately" does not mean "the complete set of". It means "biased towards". -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Tit

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Also affects: ayatana-design Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage noti

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I agree with quequotion, you can't assume that the number of people annoyed by these issues are limited to the number of people complaining about it in a bug report. Case in point, I ditched Ubuntu entirely on my desktop because systemd rendered it unbootable. I'm not going to file a bug report,

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>People who look for, find, and comment in bug reports are disproportionately those who notice and are annoyed by software's current behavior. People who don't notice, don't care about, or agree with, current behavior don't go looking for bug reports about it. I strongly disagree. You aren't taki

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Vanessa, I added that warning to the official documentation two months ago (bug 533631): "Ubuntu's Notify OSD, and GNOME Shell, both ignore this parameter." -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bug

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

this issue seems to scream: "We don't take feedback" -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bu

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I don't quite understand either, and I try to be as inclusive as possible in life, but my complaint is that there is an "official" stance to ignore the requests for a warning on the "official" documentation that says something works that does not. That is inhernetly saying, "yes I officially said

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I've read the comments defending the position that the -t parameter should be ignored. I still don't understand. I'm dumbfounded. I can honestly see no harm whatsoever in adding support for it. There are plenty of use cases for which the default time out does not work well at all. The current im

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I don't understand, why so long can't fix that problem? I added a timeout fix to my build of notify-osd ( https://launchpad.net/~leolik/+archive/ubuntu/leolik ), 5 years ago -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Matthew Paul Thomas (mpt) we don't know how many people are annoyed with this bug vs those who are not because today, we simply don't have as many competent programmers as we did a decade ago (before the tech industry boom) that will delve this deep into a problem amoung the programming community.

Re: [Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Is it just me? I noticed today that `notify-send -t TIME` has started to actually honor the -t flag, so long as TIME is 1000 milliseconds or more (less than 1000 milliseconds and it appears to use 2000 milliseconds). I think I am running stock 14.10. Maybe someone accidentally implemented -t despi

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

The majority opinion in a bug report doesn't mean anything. People who look for, find, and comment in bug reports are disproportionately those who notice and are annoyed by software's current behavior. People who don't notice, don't care about, or agree with, current behavior don't go looking for b

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>>mpt It's pretty clear that the majority opinion is to have this fixed by IMPLEMENTING the timeout parameter, not sweeping it under the rug. The #1 reason people end up here is looking for some way to make Notify- OSD's notifications go away faster. -- You received this bug notification becaus

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

It would be great if they would accept that, but this is an issue they "won't fix". If they did accept your manual page fix, someone down the line would say, "hey, wouldn't it be great if we could add a timeout option?" Then the cycle of madness repeats (with a longer circumferance). -- You rec

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Since everybody else over the past five and a half years has been more willing to make epic bug comments decrying the ridiculousness of this bug than to actually fix the man page, I have just submitted a fix for the man page (bug 533631). It was a two-line change. Anyway, the book was better.

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Yeah I know, I still see the OSD staying on and wondered, oh if there were just some way to make it disappear faster if it wasn't important. Hey, there must be a timeout option... oh wait, I'm not going to fall for that one again. We can waste our time on more productive issues that plaque the wo

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

5 years later, another random person on the internet spends hours trying to figure out why the documented -t switch won't work, eventually taking him here only to find out that the man page is documenting a feature that won't work. thanks guys. i wish i could say i at least got paid for these hour

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Also affects: notify-osd (Arch Linux) Importance: Undecided Status: New -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To ma

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>>duncan bayne The bug isn't in notify-send; this is part of libnotify which properly implements the timeout specification (you can send the timeout parameter). The problem is in notify-osd (Canonical's notification front-end) which does not properly implement the timeout specification (it will n

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Well, I am one more now affected by this BUG. Yes, it is a BUG that doesn't seem to be addressed (or people don't want to). Maybe somebody is forcing their hands and they have to come up with justifications, which from what I read are changing over time (just like the documentation ;)). One of the

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I was developing a script based on inotify that would use very short- lived onscreen notifications. Turns out I can't, at least not with notify-send; I spent some time trying to debug my script before thinking it might be a bug elsewhere. This needs fixing either by: - making osd-notify honour

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

That's unlikely to be related. If you have a reproducible example of a notification bubble that never disappears, please report it as a separate bug. Thanks! -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bu

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

there's also the fact that lacking support for the timeout parameter allows for notifications that do not reliably disappear, ever. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notify

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Fact remains that, for as long as the spec continues to say otherwise, notify-osd and Gnome Shell are in violation of the spec. If you intend to keep things like this, then: * Remove the parameters from your API. Take it out of the function signature, take it out of the command line tool. Stop fo

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

That is another example of assuming the question. Following the standards process I described in 2014-01-02, the next step would be for the spec to be updated, reflecting the fact that the implementations used by most people eschew that property. -- You received this bug notification because you

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

The people trying to figure out why notifications linger at the top of the screen for way too long and cause new notifications to come in late and pile up in a chain that can go on for several minutes are not reading outdated documentation; they are trying to figure out what is wrong with this impl

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Besides, the documentation contradicting Ubuntu's implementation at freedesktop.org isn't outdated. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout p

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Vanessa, since you ask, those are four more examples of illogical reasoning. The first is a straw man: "no we won't do that and we won't tell you about it". Nobody has suggested that. Everyone agrees that the man page does not match reality. As unknown and Holger have pointed out, notify-send can't

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

The documentation patch is wrong. Notification is a client/server infrastructure, and it is up to the server to respect or ignore certain client requests (such as timeout settings, amonst others). The man page of the client cannot possibly know which server the user is using. Thus, "currently ignor

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

A similar bug on fedora - https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781906 ** Bug watch added: Red Hat Bugzilla #781906 https://bugzilla.redhat.com/show_bug.cgi?id=781906 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bu

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Where is the illogical reasoning where: A group of people encountered a timeout option that was not working, spent many hours of their time, lives, and energy, to figure out what was causing it, and only to find out it does nothing but did not warm them of so? They posted about this, and have ask

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Approaching this logically would be excellent. "The whole point of Ubuntu and free software is to be better than commercial" is a muddled premise -- Ubuntu is both free software *and* commercial -- but I understand what you're getting at. Unfortunately, you have omitted the logical route from there

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Well let's approach this logically, scientifically, sensibly, and reasonably. We have an easy opportunity to add a "choice", to have the option or not. But we are choosing not to have a choice. The whole point of Ubuntu and free software is to be better than commercial, to actually have the best

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Notify OSD was inefficiently tracking its bugs in two places, the project and the Ubuntu package, an example of bug 76416. Now we've migrated to tracking bugs just on the package. To briefly list your resulting errors, (1) that this is a bug is assuming the question, (2) the cases described in this

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

No longer affects notify-osd? When is someone with the authority and the ability going to wake up and realize that this bug needs to be fixed, and the way to fix it is to implement the expire_timeout parameter as specified. There are plenty of specific cases pointed out in this report of users an

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** No longer affects: notify-osd -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bug

Re: [Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I was not out to program anything the day I found out about this problem. I was writing a shell script just to get something displayed on screen after a key press. I found out about notify-osd and used it, it took 5 seconds for me to figure out how to use it. Then I realized that notifications we

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

@mpt: The problem isn't just that some devs chose to ignore a spec. It's also the fact that they told nobody about it; and other devs are forced to waste time discovering this fact. Either follow the spec; or change the spec so people will know what to expect. Both variants are one-liner patches.

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

When you first encounter a specification for a language or a protocol, it is common to consider it as inviolable. If a program implements the specification to the letter, everything will be okay, right? But it isn't so -- as any developer of an RSS parser, Imap client, or Web browser could tell you

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Allow me to clarify the situation. In the Desktop Notification Specification there is nothing to suggest that the expire_timeout parameter is optional. https://developer.gnome.org/notification-spec/#commands The devs for gnome-shell and notifyOSD have taken it upon themselves to silently(!) igno

Re: [Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Thanks for the patch, though I think eventually this issue needs to be worked out and agreed upon. -Vanessa On Tue, 2013-12-24 at 04:44 +, Heather Van Wilde wrote: > @vanessax Buried in the comments is a patch that is supposed to restore > full functionality. But that, for one, doesn't addr

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

@vanessax Buried in the comments is a patch that is supposed to restore full functionality. But that, for one, doesn't address the core issue, and secondly, does nothing to prevent the next change done to notify-osd by Ubuntu devs to rebreak the system down the road. -- You received this bug no

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Having spent 5 minutes learning about notify-osd and then 6 hours trying to figure out what the problem was and finally coming across this, it's appearent there is a dichotomous debate over this timeout issue. I'm not sure if it's already mentioned before, but isn't there a way for the user to set

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

It's amazing. Three and a half years, almost to the day, since this 'bug' was first commented on. I use bug very loosely, because all it is is poor programming that the developer would rather defend than make the few small changes required to resolve this. There have been dozens of case uses ide

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>>mpt No, it doesn't. http://www.galago-project.org/specs/notification/0.9/x408.html#command- close-notification In section 9, notifaction D-BUS protocol specification, it clearly states: "The following messages must be supported by all implementations. " Following that is section 9.1, which l

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

oriolpoint, Notify OSD implements the FreeDesktop Notifications spec, and also provides synchronous feedback for volume and brightness (and soon, for Bluetooth and Wi-Fi hardware switches as well). It is quite common for a computer program to implement a specification, and also to do other things.

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

@oriolpont: you are right, that's a bug, those are likely to be moved out of the notification service in unity8 -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expi

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Well, Notify OSD is synchronous for system volume and screen brightness. Then, why does core ubuntu functionality go against the standard? -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title:

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

quequotion, the FreeDesktop notifications specification is for asynchronous notifications. Since five years before Notify OSD was released -- since before Ubuntu even existed -- it has been right there in the very first sentence of the specification: "to notify the user in an asynchronous manner of

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Well, it looks like the tide has turned toward sweeping this under the rug by changing the man page... Allow me to reiterate that this is the wrong way to fix this bug. The correct way would be to support the timeout parameter. That would also follow the freedesktop spec, if it still means anyth

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

The man page of notify-send in Saucy still claims "Specifies the timeout in milliseconds at which to expire the notification". The note in libnotify will not help users looking at notify-send. My attached patch further up fixes that. -- You received this bug notification because you are a membe

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Changed in: notify-osd Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix ** Changed in: notify-osd (Ubuntu) Status: Confirmed => Won't Fix -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title:

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Some notes: * the documentation issue has been addressed in 0.7.6 by upstream with that commit: https://git.gnome.org/browse/libnotify/commit/?id=91280420269c98e408adc0db1e1d1e74cf24c71c (which adds a "Note that the timeout may be ignored by the server." note) * the version with that fix is in

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

When someone asks me 'what does digging your heels in' mean? I'm gonna refer them to this page. I mean this is just stupid. Make the timeout configurable - everyone's asking for it, it's easy to do. Most people wanting to do this for real-time updates like media streaming or guard- like auto-te

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Patch attached that mentions the behaviour in the man page. ** Patch added: "0001-Mention-that-t-expire-time-is-ignored.patch" https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/notify-osd/+bug/390508/+attachment/3812164/+files/0001-Mention-that-t-expire-time-is-ignored.patch -- You received this bug

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> In a commercial enterprise, a person would get sacked for willfully not doing their job for this long. you assume that there is an active maintainer for that component, look at the vcs commit history and you will notice notify-osd is lacking a maintainer for a while Could everyone stop doing +

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

+4 on this insanity At this point to me it 's not even about the broken function anymore, it's the fact that this bug is coming up on it's 4th birthday and the maintainers still haven't gotten around to editing the two lines of code or updating the man page. In a commercial enterprise, a person w

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> I love this thread. It is the bug that keeps on giving, year after year, > each time someone spends a few hours in frustration and then stumbles > across this bug. Frustrations turns to disbelief and then finally to > resignation. +3 But, it's Open-Source. Why just not forking it and create a r

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> I love this thread. It is the bug that keeps on giving, year after year, > each time someone spends a few hours in frustration and then stumbles > across this bug. Frustrations turns to disbelief and then finally to > resignation. +2. Also sharing Ducan's opinion. Do you really want to tell us t

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> I love this thread. It is the bug that keeps on giving, year after year, > each time someone spends a few hours in frustration and then stumbles > across this bug. Frustrations turns to disbelief and then finally to > resignation. +1 ... that describes my recent experience. This sort of heavy-h

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Why there is a parameter if that is ignored and even if it is ignored it should not be in documentation. I agree with you for either changing software or documentation. But changing software would be better option as it will provide better control. -- You received this bug notification because yo

Re: [Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I love this thread. It is the bug that keeps on giving, year after year, each time someone spends a few hours in frustration and then stumbles across this bug. Frustrations turns to disbelief and then finally to resignation. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Documentation shoud be accurate. When it's not there's a bug. There's two ways to fix that kind of a bug: make the software work correctly, or rewrite the documentation. If the desire for a consistent user interface is to much to make the software work correctly as described in the docs (by havi

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

+1 for fixing the documentation -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

then fix the bl**dy docs, whoever made this st**id "design decision" against the wish of so many users -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeou

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> Unfortunately, I have to join in here. > I intended to use desktop notifications for my scripts but the inability to > specify a timeout makes the whole system completely > useless. No you don't need to comment if you don't have anything to add, it has been 3 years that bug is open and it has

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Unfortunately, I have to join in here. I intended to use desktop notifications for my scripts but the inability to specify a timeout makes the whole system completely useless. I had to revert to kdialog for showing messages on screen. What a bloody mess... -- You received this bug notification

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

notify-send, like any other program, should and must behave as described in its man-page! Please, make the timeout-parameter work as expected. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Ti

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I would like to set a short time, because I use notify-send for displaying my code test results -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout p

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I also like to appeal this decision. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bug go to: https:/

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I don't understand why such a silly limitation is hard coreded into a utility that other developers are supposed to use. Is there a better place we can appeal this decision? Timeouts ought to be controlled by apps and if apps abuse them, it should be brought up with the app developer. Is notifi

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Okay, this affects me too. I depend on the expire timeout parameter for the same reason as another developer noted. I have my own scripts that notify me of interesting things through notify-send (with a 10 minute expiry, for example). I like the luxury of making myself a cup of tea and returning to

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>Fewer notifications is a lose term. I can easily abuse the current functionality and keep triggering notifications. I just can't have them disappear as quickly as I might like, ie it doesn't respect the timeout. Indeed. Canonical's policy does nothing to affect the number of possible notification

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> well, that's if you consider that less notifications is an issue, I would rather consider it as a feature (but that's my personal opinion) we get enough "notification spam" without encouraging every software writter to add some ;-) I agree that spamming is a bad thing. I just think Ubuntu's poli

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

> the look of all the responses, people turning away from or hacking the notifications, I would say it's a poor design decision or one that needs to be reviewed. Especially if you want to encourage development in the community. well, that's if you consider that less notifications is an issue, I wo

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

I was going to check this bug's ranking by searching launchpad by "number of comments". Unfortunately that feature of Launchpad is broken! Is this really something for the Wishlist? There are already plenty of forum posts and blogs recommending to just do away with notify-osd because of this and

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Changed in: notify-osd Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about th

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

"bealer, opensource based doesn't mean you can't take design decisions or choices, we could try to fix every applications and blame random softwares installed from the internet for making ubuntu bug or we can enforce some design choices we believe benefit our users and communication to software wri

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

it's not a usability easy bug, it's a design decision ** Changed in: hundredpapercuts Status: Confirmed => Invalid -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignor

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

** Changed in: hundredpapercuts Importance: Undecided => Wishlist -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notificatio

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Changed to confirmed for the 100papercut too. ** Changed in: hundredpapercuts Status: New => Confirmed -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expir

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

@Tim D, thanks for the hack! ;) -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifications about this bug go to: https://bugs

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

Sometimes it seems the reverse is true. Many developers are also users. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter To manage notifica

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

>>wirespot this is not true: "users take second place to developers" I think you meant to say "many of the users are also developers" -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 Title: n

[Bug 390508] Re: notifyOSD ignores the expire timeout parameter

For those proposing the man pages change to reflect the actual behavior of notify-osd, consider this: notify-send works exactly as advertised under xfce4. -- You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/

  1   2   >