Re: Sound effects

On Fri, 12.12.08 11:55, Iain * (iaingnome gmail com) wrote:

> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 11:34 AM, Marc-André Lureau
> <marcandre lureau gmail com> wrote:
> > And all the sound can link to the same sound, if what you want is a
> > single sound (although I would never do that)
> Sorry, I didn't notice this...
> No, I wouldn't want to do that either
> Because the sound would not be emitted at a good time
> If you think that is what I wanted then you misunderstood me.
> I want sound emitting to mean something predictable.
> Currently it means multiple different things.
> It can mean you did something, something succeeded, something failed,
> something unexpected happened, you're required to do something,
> something expected happened...and the occurances of these sounds is
> arbitrary and at the whim of the people who came up with the naming
> spec.
> I want a single meaning for when sound is emitted.
> To be honest, I don't really care what that sound sounds like
> it could be a duck or frog (like the mac has) for all I care[1].

Come one. First you claim the list of defined names is too large. Then
you claim it is incomplete. Then you want only a single sound for
all. Now you want to distuingish the events. Hey, make up your mind!

You know, we define 125 sounds. It's up to you which ones you link
to the same file and which ones you don't define at all. We already
give you the power to do whatever you want.


Lennart Poettering                        Red Hat, Inc.
lennart [at] poettering [dot] net         ICQ# 11060553           GnuPG 0x1A015CC4

[Date Prev][Date Next]   [Thread Prev][Thread Next]   [Thread Index] [Date Index] [Author Index]