> Interesting, its not listed by the interface - ah, because it has the
> 'hidden' flag set.
>
> I'll disable it for now.
Robert Collins said this above on 1/5/2007, and I agree with his decision. However it looks like in the new version it needs to be disabled again.
Personally, my strong recommendation here would be to:
1) not make this 'hidden' by default (gconf flag: /apps/rhythmbox/plugins/power-manager/hidden).
2) not make this 'active' by default (gconf flag: /apps/rhythmbox/plugins/power-manager/active).
Why something that interferes with the user's explicit choice in g-p-m is active by default, and not only that but HIDDEN by default is foreign to me. I understand the use-case for this plugin, but it should not be active by default; a user seeking a special exception to his or her settings should, I would reason, have to actually make a special exception, via this plugin. The burden should be put on confused and irritated users to figure out why their explicit options in g-p-m are not being followed, it should be put on the users who want special and non-standard behavior. Additionally, making it not hidden will also allow such curious users to enable it easier. This could then go in the Ubuntu FAQ as something similar to: "How to have your PC ignore suspend requests when playing music".
> Interesting, its not listed by the interface - ah, because it has the
> 'hidden' flag set.
>
> I'll disable it for now.
Robert Collins said this above on 1/5/2007, and I agree with his decision. However it looks like in the new version it needs to be disabled again.
Personally, my strong recommendation here would be to:
1) not make this 'hidden' by default (gconf flag: /apps/rhythmbox /plugins/ power-manager/ hidden) . /plugins/ power-manager/ active) .
2) not make this 'active' by default (gconf flag: /apps/rhythmbox
Why something that interferes with the user's explicit choice in g-p-m is active by default, and not only that but HIDDEN by default is foreign to me. I understand the use-case for this plugin, but it should not be active by default; a user seeking a special exception to his or her settings should, I would reason, have to actually make a special exception, via this plugin. The burden should be put on confused and irritated users to figure out why their explicit options in g-p-m are not being followed, it should be put on the users who want special and non-standard behavior. Additionally, making it not hidden will also allow such curious users to enable it easier. This could then go in the Ubuntu FAQ as something similar to: "How to have your PC ignore suspend requests when playing music".
What does everyone think?