> you want to do this, some other for 6 seconds, some for > 18 seconds, and we get a system working in a non consistant > way for no real reason out of different software writters having > different preferences for timing
Umm, I'm the software author, how about letting ME decide what timing is appropriate for MY notifications, of which libnotify is merely a conveyor? I do believe I know best what timing to use. How is it possible that authors of a completely different lib pretend to know such things better than me, the author? > Ubuntu decided to make a call for consistent system interaction > and not random timing behaviour which most users are glad for I beg to differ. These notifications suck. And there's plenty of evidence on the forums and on the web, if you're willing to read it. The fact they stay up for so long, the fact you can't put more than one at a time up (the second one is reserved, really), the fact they obscure information on screen, the fact you can't customize position and transparency etc. > if you don't agree with that feel free to use another notification > service or distribution I'm sorry but this remark is brain-dead. The very idea behind this notification library was that everybody would use it. How can you say "use something else"? What good is that? I'll say this again (said it above): if you attempt to provide an "unification" library, you want everybody to be able to use it. If only select software can use it, it's no longer a unifying library, it's just another alternative. And you have FAILED in your attempt to offer unification. -- notify-send ignores the expire timeout parameter https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508 You received this bug notification because you are a member of Ubuntu Bugs, which is subscribed to Ubuntu. -- ubuntu-bugs mailing list ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs
