Comment 7 for bug 1759714

> Please follow the steps in comment #2 if you would like any help.
> If you don't have time then no problem, just let the bug expire.

The very idea of bugs expiring because the OP doesn't provide any given piece of information is stupid. I'm always puzzled at how it's such a common practice in bug trackers. It makes no sense to close a bug unless it's either fixed or found to be invalid. What's the point in waiting for other people to stumble on the same bug and report it again and again?

Also you're demanding an unreasonable amount of work on the side of the reporter (yes, I know, you're not "demanding" anything strictly speaking, but I mean expecting it to be done by the reporter rather than by the developers or triagers): to uninstall a driver and test whether the bug is still present in a completely different configuration. Whatever the answer is, the bug exists and isn't any less of a bug: the test would serve the purpose of TRIAGING the bug, which is not something that can reasonably be expected to be done by the user. Now, of course it never hurts to ask the reporter to try something, but putting the bug in "incomplete" status (which implies it expiring if the original poster doesn't do that) is wrong.

That's like closing a bug because it's too difficult to fix (note that difficult to reproduce just mean difficult to investigate which in turn means difficult to fix: that does not make it any less of an issue or mean it's any less severe; if anything it means it needs more attention, not less). Actually that's exactly what it is, and it is done a lot, which is what frustrates me (and part of the reason why Ubuntu is so buggy).