@Mark

Thanks for responding to this, even after pointing out that it could be a waste of time to respond to every request.

Unfortunately, your response proves that this bug is endemic. As you say, you and senior Ubuntu developers to respond to bugs. The problem is not that you don't respond, but in how you respond.

I'm going to be constructive here and offer solutions.

The first problem is tone: you're being impatient with and unsympathetic to community woes.

One example is that your requirements for "constructive solutions" from the community seem exceedingly high. Isn't opening a bug constructive? It takes time and effort to do so. This is free QA work done for Canonical. The language some people use is strong -- but remember that usually people open a bug as a last resort, after trying numerous things and searching the Internet for solution. In fact, this is what you reasonably require of us *before* opening a bug? The result is that bugs are often open in a state of frustration, so harsh words are said, and it may appear "selfish." And there are language and cultural differences.

May I suggest that you develop a tougher skin? That you be more forgiving and sympathetic to strong words? Even if you don't appreciate the sentiment, I suggest you take the high road: answer the disgruntled user by graciously thanking them for the time and effort they took to report the bug, and explain to them why it can't be solved right now, what solutions are being planned, and what alternative solutions are available right now. You can have a stock answer that you copy and paste for this, and modify a bit for the circumstance. (More on this below.)

The second example of very high standards for constructive solutions is rejected patches. A patch is a "constructive solution" if there very was one. Woe to the free software project that curtly rejects patches! You will develop such ill will that nobody will want to even try to fix bugs for you.

The second problem is detail: you're not being detailed enough in your answers when you do answer. (And that's a mild way of putting it...)

I understand the lack of time, as I'm very busy, too. Then how about you write a FAQ and direct users to it? My fear, though, is that your FAQ would reflect your impatience:

Q: Why can't I customize aspect X of Unity?
A: You don't like it? Use GNOME Shell or KDE or KFCE or LXDE! Goodbye!

Mark, this might be a reasonable solution for a user trying to get work done, but an unreasonable response to the community wanting to embrace Unity and improve it. If there's one point I want to get across here, it's that distinction.

The community is not just a few users with a few problems. The community is your human scaffolding. Striking a deal with Dell might seem more important for Ubuntu's success in the short run, but without community Ubuntu's soul will be lost, and I believe it may fail in the long term. Ubuntu is for humans, and so it is named. Unity unites, and so it is named. These inspirations are rare in software, make me proud to promote Ubuntu, and will be not be so easy to recover if they are lost. It took 7 years to build this community: it would be a pity to have to start from scratch.

It's discouraging to hear from you that cultivating this community is deemed a waste of time. If it's a full-time job to do so, I would think it worthwhile to hire someone for it.

Here's my suggestion for a "community" FAQ structure (as opposed to a "user" FAQ):

Q: Why can't I customize aspect X of Unity?
A: Thank you for asking a legitimate question! We welcome this and all feedback from the community. In the meantime, until we find a solution, we recommend alternatives A, B and C. Please let us know if you have other suggestions for alternatives and we'll post them here. As for a solution:

We have a better one planned. It's going to take some time to get it in, but to get a sense of how it will work, check out <link>. Please subscribe here: <link> to be notified for when beta testing for this feature will begin. Also, please feel free to comment here: <link to forum discussion>, and try to be respectful and patient. We'll try, too.

or:

At the moment we can't solve this problem due to lack of manpower. If you can, please write a patch and submit it. Moreover, we want to be convinced of your commitment to continue maintaining this feature as Unity continues to evolve. It's important to think of you how this feature would fit in our overall plan: <link>.

or:

We believe that this is not really a problem, and only seems so due to bad user habits acquired from other software. Our usability studies have shown that <link to studies with an analysis of the results>.

or:

At the moment we believe that it's better not to solve this problem because it doesn't fit our vision for Unity's evolution, and we believe that doing so would limit that vision. We understand that this is a contentious answer, and so will go into some detail here. We want Unity to be A, B, C. Though B is not available yet, you can see how it will look on the roadmap here: <link>. If we add feature X as requested here, it would break our ability to implement B. If you think we have overlooked an alternative solution, please let us know here: <link>.