"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 writers on our design choice and how to well
integrate with our system, it's what other very people device makers do
for their system as well and users don't complain so much about the
limitations since in the end it leads to things working nicely together
in a consistent way"

@Seb of course you have to make design decisions, that's part of
software development. From 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.

One could argue that developers will go off and use other notification
systems which in itself means less consistency. Exactly the thing you
were trying to stop.

Developers are putting forward examples and reasons why they would like
a more granular timeout. Some good, some bad. But it's such use cases
that should contribute towards making a design decision.

What would be interesting to see is the research and reasoning behind
the current design decision. How do you know one length of timeout for
all things benefits the user, or was it a decision plucked out of the
air?

Simplest fix, at least correct the documentation then I bet you'd end up
with a lot fewer comments here!

-- 
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.launchpad.net/hundredpapercuts/+bug/390508/+subscriptions

-- 
ubuntu-bugs mailing list
ubuntu-bugs@lists.ubuntu.com
https://lists.ubuntu.com/mailman/listinfo/ubuntu-bugs

Reply via email to