Comment 257 for bug 332945

James Dowden wrote:
> I had thought this was just a bug in the beta version, but I did not
> know which package to report it against. Now I've read this and I am
> totally outraged by this deliberate regression.
> As for Mark Shuttleworth's ludicrous assumption that only coding experts
> want the previous default behavior, it shows a distinct need to get out
> more. I am not a coder, and I'm not a particular fan of pasting half-
> understood unsupported (talk about brazenness!) commands into a
> terminal, but I do want a system that works.
> This sort of half-baked dogfood belongs in some PPA so that it can be
> properly criticized, not in a release. Then we could have had the
> discussions about the Settings button on Update Manager not doing what
> it says and so on in a proper way.
> Instead of devs coming on here and arrogantly marking things as
> "Invalid" and "Won't Fix", they should pause for a moment and realize
> that they have abused process to create a mess. The correct response
> would be to apologize to the users and issue the old version as a
> security fix (after all, it delays vital updates!), whilst restarting
> the development process after a more community-oriented fashion.
> If such an apology is not forthcoming, we should concluded that the devs
> concerned's injection of code that sabotages functionality is malicious,
> that is to say a virus rather than a bug, and we should seek to have
> their write access to the repos withdrawn.
a bit too harsh there pal...
i'm one among the users who are vocal here , against the new change, but
asking the devs for an apology, is way out there!!!

i'm sure the devs wanted to improve the OS, but maybe this just wasnt a
good move, but atleast we have the gconf options.