Re: [Ayatana] Windows 8 and OS X Lion observations

[Jo-Erlend Schinstad <joerlend.schinstad@xxxxxxxxx>]

On 09. juni 2011 12:56, Tony Pursell wrote:
> I cannot understand the desire to get rid of the panel. With people
> arguing whether a clock is needed and, so on.
>
> For me a panel is handy place to keep things I know I want quick access
> to.
Right. We do have the panel, and I don't think it would
be a good idea to remove it or hide it. Some information
is important all the time.

> In some walks of life the clock is one of them.  In my role as a
> volunteer advisor for the UK CAB I need to keep an eye on the clock.
> The computer is the best place for it.  It would be rude to keep looking
> at my watch, but the client thinks nothing of my quick glance at the
> computer.
Good example. Of course, there are many reasons why
people want to be able to look at the clock without taking
further actions.

> There are even things that the Unity police have already taken away from
> me.  In Classic, I have a small applet on the panel which disables the
> screen saver - very useful when watching long videos, listening to
> Ubuntu UK Podcasts or talking to my brother on Skype.  I would love it
> back on the panel.

Now, that is how you loose an argument. "The Unity police"? Don't
be silly. You have an applet in gnome-panel, you say. Can you explain
why an appindicator is less suited to disable the screensaver than
a gnome-panel applet? You'd click on it and a menu is displayed.
The first menu item lets you disable the screensaver temporarily,
then you get a list of applications that can have their own settings.
You could say that Totem should prevent the screensaver if something
is being played, but re-enable it if it's stopped or paused, for instance.
Or that Skype should prevent it when there is any activity, otherwise
not.

In what way does Unity prevent you from doing this? The correct
answer, of course, is that it doesn't.

Jo-Erlend Schinstad