Comment 95 for bug 390508

Holger Berndt ha scritto:
>> Totally wrong
>
> No, it's not.

I have clear in mind what is the aim of notify-osd. But I still don't
see any reason why that goal is achived by imposing *every* user a fixed
5 seconds timeout.

> I was not talking about what you'd like, but about what notify-osd is aiming at. It is part of project Ayatana, and here's a statement about configurability in that project:
> http://<email address hidden>/msg00747.html

We are neither talking about good defaults nor about extended
configuration options. But you ignores it.

>> Oh really? That's strange, because it fits perfectly my needs
>
> Obviously, it doesn't, because otherwise, there wouldn't be any need to
> complain.

No, it fits perfectly, but I do prefer to have different timeouts. What
I'm complaining here mostly and what bothers me is the Ubuntu team
arrogance and blindness. And the lack af good arguing for this limitation.

> And I don't really care for your
> engineering background,

And we don't really care about you telling us what's right or wrong for us.

>> Oh well, finally we discovered the problem: the others
>
> Yes, if you rely on notification daemon specialities,

No need for long stories, I'm not relying on anything, I just want to
see a bubble message on my desktop with notify-osd, because I like it,
except for the fact that it does not take into account the timeout
parameter passed from the application (while it easily could without
breaking the unification purpose).

> How does a developer know how his notification is going to look or
> behave?

Even though I like the new notification system, about this specific
topic and about relying on the popup being show or having all the
action, I might ask you why developers should use something that comes
with no guarantee to work or to work exactly as they expected.