On Oct 25, 2010, at 16:11:37, Leandro de Oliveira wrote: > Maybe these ideas could be implemented in a library version of Growl that's > made to be bundled with applications …
We've discussed this before, and the most recent discussion (which was, unfortunately, off-list for some reason) arrived at the conclusion that this would be a bad idea: Effectively, a version of Growl that users could not turn off or remove. > This could shift the burden to third party apps because they would need a UI > to have all configuration options that Growl already does … This is exactly the problem. An application that isn't responsible about installing Growl, we cannot assume would be responsible about providing a UI to disable its built-in Growl. > As a developer, I would prefer to use this library instead of having to > install Growl or ask the user to do so. That was a driving force behind the idea originally, and was why we were previously planning to do it. The change of perspective brought on by apps installing Growl without permission changed our minds on it: We now see anything that makes it harder for users to turn off or remove Growl (or Growl functionality) as an invitation to even more angry email. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Growl Discuss" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/growldiscuss?hl=en.
