Re: Sound effects

[Lennart Poettering <mztabzr 0pointer de>]

On Fri, 12.12.08 14:06, Iain * (iaingnome gmail com) wrote:

> > 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!
> 
> Thats not what i've said at all.
> Nicely twisted into a meaningless strawman.

Do you want me to compile the list of quotes of your that show that
you said exactly the things I mentioned above? Maybe you didn't mean
them, but you did *write* them.

> I think the list of defined names is too long.
> 
> If you are attempted to define a list of all possible different things
> that may have different sounds then the the list is incomplete.

That was never the intention of the naming spec. The intention is to
provide a good set for the beginning and then to add all sounds people
have a valid need for. And we jump started it by looking around us and
compiling the list from all the sounds that are currently in
use. Which I still think is a good way to handle this, possibly even
the only good way.

> I was highlighting this to show that it is impossible to define all
> possibilties before hand in some spec, not to claim that I want more
> sounds.

I repeatedly tried to make clear that we are happy to update the list
when people want to add or change something, if there is a valid
reason. Nobody said the spec would be set in stone and already be
"complete" for all eternity.

> I want a single meaning for why a sound has happened. 

Yes, that's why the spec tries to explain in which context a specific
sound should be used.

> I want a simple answer to the question "should my application make a
> sound in this situation?"

Uh?

> I don't want to distinguish events.

I am increasingly getting more confused by what you say and what
exactly it is what you want. To me this last sentence and "I want a
single meaning for why a sound has happened" appear to be directly
contradicting. 

And I am sorry, I am pretty sure that if you feel misunderstood by
everyone it is not just the audience's fault, but simply that you
apparently failed to explain properly what you really want.

> I want the user to be able to know that when they hear a sound that
> there is something that may need their attention.

Isn't that the whole point of notification sounds?

> > 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.
> 
> And thats completely NOT what I want and has missed the point.

Then enlighten me!

> But I see that no-one else cares. So I shall stop caring as well.

Apparently Ronald cares. It's difficult for me to care if I don't
understand what exactly it is what you want.

> And this is my last mail on the subject

Aha!

Lennart

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