As long as I have a executable binary (notify-send) which is accessible by the user, and the binary takes a "-t" (timeout) parameter, I consider that we're talking about end user freedom and not developer freedom. This wouldn't have made it all the way here if this "-t" option wasn't in the man page. If it was an API / method or function call parameter, then I agree - it would have been developer-land. And I'm sorry, but you can make all the excuses you want, you're not going to convince me that it's beneficial for the majority of Ubuntu users to ignore this parameter. That you want to create a framework for the notifications, that will have good defaults for everything instead of relying on application developers to set the notification durations is a worth-while endeavor, and you deserve praise for it; but the existence of reasonable defaults _does NOT_ automatically exclude the ability to override them. Aside from the minimal effort of spending the resources needed to implement this feature (which should be significantly cheaper than arguing over the merits of this thread), there is no reasonable benefit for anybody that arises from ignoring the expire time parameter. I'm working on a solution myself, because I have lost hope that somebody in the Launchpad / Ubuntu team will fix this problem. I'm very disappointed, but there's no way to force you, so I have to fix my own problem - thanks to RMS and the GPL, this should be possible. If and when this solution of mine will work, I will make it public - but so far I have no foreseeable "release date". On Mon, Nov 23, 2009 at 2:19 PM, Matthew Paul Thomas