Comment 92 for bug 390508

@ Krzysztof:

As far as I'm concerned, that would solve my problem; but bear in mind that
the issue here is not that my personal problem with notify-osd needs to be
solved. Other people may want longer notifications on the screen. Same with
replace and merge.

The issue here is that the developers want to enforce some unnecessary,
useless and frustrating restrictions on how people use their code. Some
people argue it's their right. I'm not going to say it's not, it's just that
without understanding the specific benefits this position is bringing to the
community, it seems they're not really following their mantra. If it was
Microsoft or Apple - I wouldn't have bothered to argue on this thread - we
all know they want to enforce their interests on their users, and charge you
for it. It's just that it's Linux, and we're used to freedom and
community-oriented decisions rather than corporatist bull**** motivated by
greed.

--
Support Wikipedia:
http://wikimediafoundation.org/wiki/Donate/en
http://volunteer.wikimedia.org/
--
DRM 'manages access' in the same way that jail 'manages freedom'.

On Mon, Mar 22, 2010 at 11:50 PM, Krzysztof Jelski <email address hidden>wrote:

> How about leaving hardcoded limit for MAXIMUM timeout only? So that
> other notifications wouldn't get blocked. Developers (or users of
> notify-send) would be able to set the timeout from 1 ms to let's say 5
> secs. I guess it would solve 99% of problems mentioned here, wouldn't
> it?
>
> --
> notify-send ignores the expire timeout parameter
> https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/390508
> You received this bug notification because you are a direct subscriber
> of the bug.
>