Comment 6 for bug 41834

I don't know the official policy here, but I've been using Mozilla's bugzilla, and doing QA there, for more than 5 years. Marking an older bug a duplicate of a newer bug is what lazy programmers do. They don't care about the QA people. Unless a programmer files the newer bug and attaches a patch to it, or the earlier bug is a clearly inferior report to the later report, the newer bug is supposed to be duped to the earlier bug. To do otherwise:

1-Makes open bugs look like they're newer than they are (date originally filed, real age, is not normally included in query lists)
2-provides incentive for people to be lazy and not first look for existing bugs, since they're no less likely to be fixed than older bugs
3-provides disincentive for people to try to file only good bug reports that are not duplicates, since there's reduced likelihood they'll get looked at before the latest filed bugs
4-provides incentive for QA people to quit doing QA due to all the extra work resulting from 2 & 3 above

That someone finds only the summary deficient in an existing bug, is no justification to file a new bug. Instead, the existing bug should have its summary adjusted. If you wish to alienate the few people interested in doing quality QA, by all means continue to permit old bugs to be duped to new bugs.

From the description of this bug, I would not likely have found it in a search prior to filing bug 27458. The age of a keyboard has absolutely nothing to do with vttys being unusable.