> <snip> No. What surprises me is when people are fine with those bugs as > long > as there is a quick way to kill the X server that is enabled by default. > </snip> > > People do file bugs. Perhaps not everyone, and perhaps not every time. Well, then it shouldn't be too difficult to come up with a few bug reports to give others an idea of what's going on here. You are right, it is not difficult to come up with a few bug reports. What would you suggest I do to continue with my business in the case X needs to be restarted without forcing my to shut down my system while the bug report is being triaged? If a bug happens once, it is possible for it to happen again (else, how is debugging possible?), what if this same bug happens to be a second time? I am still waiting for the bug to be debugged, yet have no quick way to get back to work in the mean time. It is unreasonable to expect even users who have programing experience to use the terminal for honestly much more than occasional scripts. I have absolutely no desire to C-A-F#, find the program that is giving me fits, and then kill it in the hopes it fixes my issue. > I'm one of those users who would prefer that the C-A-B command be left > as it is, or be modified to allow the ability through some other interface: > such as twice successive. > > I have filed several bug reports about issues related to problems with > X, <a href="https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289898" target="_blank">https://bugs.launchpad.net/bugs/289898</a> for example. This is a kernel bug. I would be very surprised if C-A-B worked here. C-A-B does not work in that instance, you are correct. But since you seem to know so much about it, could you please provide a fix for me? I have been unable to figure out anything beyond what I reported already. It happens regularly to myself and all members of my universities LUG who have the same model laptop as myself. To be frank, it is quite annoying, regardless of C-A-B or not. However, while that was a poor example, it is the first one I thought of. I can create several new bug reports for x-crashes or glitches that I don't feel confident in reporting just yet do to lack of information on my part, if you would like. The bugs I would report happen haphazardly enough that I can't predict their cause yet, and I am able to deal with these problems (in most cases) by simply brute-force hacking the problem away via calling C-A-B to get back to what I was doing as quickly as possible. The problem may exist in any of the programs that I'm currently using, or may be unrelated to all of them and a problem with any of the hardware devices I have. I don't know how to reproduce any of the issues with reliability, but I would be happy to report the problems for you. > But the problem is still going to be there for that person from when they > originally filed the bug until the problem has been tracked down, until a > fix has been written, until its been tested to not break anything, until its > been patched to the package, until the package as been released, and finally > the package has been downloaded (and in the case of things like the kernal, > and graphics support) until the computer (or X) has been restarted. This is why we need to figure out if there's some sort of pattern behind the problems people are seeing. I agree with John Moser. Allow the user to go back to work, and automatically file a bug report using the apport interface. I assume thats why apport exists, to catch crashes and report them when possible. Otherwise... why does it pop up on my screen whenever a program crashes..? > Once I submit a bug report about this issue, Can you give me a guarentee > that I will have an update sitting on my system within an amount of time > that make it reasonable to not have C-A-B immediately available to me? If you really think you need it, it's really not that hard to enable it. Most people won't need it, so why should it be enabled by default? By the way, nobody will guarantee you anything unless you're willing to pay money. I'm not willing to pay money, as I have none. However, that was not the reason I said that. My (potentially incorrect) impression is that you assume users who use Ubuntu are responsible for submitting bug reports when they encounter broken functionality or instability. In many cases, C-A-B is a work around for bugs that otherwise have no currently implimented fix. In the case of the issues I reported above, I am well aware that volunteers don't normally volunteer for issues that they are not concerned about. My problems are not necessarially the problems of the Ubuntu Dev's. Having C-A-B allows me to go on with my day without needing to bother them. Yes, I can change my configuration files to bring the functionality back after it is disabled, but my grandfather cannot. Nor can my mother, nor can many of the friends who I have installed Ubuntu for. Yes, I can personally help them change the behavior, but that is not the case for everyone. Some people use Ubuntu because it is free of cost, not necessarially because they are computer enthusists. C-A-B is a work around. It is not intended to be a feature, it is intended to be a (sorry for my language in advance) "Oh Shit" button. If we can duplicate this same functionality via A-S-K, then I have absolutely no objections to disabling C-A-B. However, I personally do not want to ask my grandfather to switch to a terminal over the phone, and I personally do not want to ask him to hard-reset his system in the event that his Ubuntu installation has X lock on him. The terminal would just be a waste of his and my time, and the hard-reset could (emphasis) potentially damage his hardware. Thomas, do you mind if I ask why you seem so adamant that C-A-B stay disabled? If we change it to A-S-K the accidental activation problem has a (in my opinion much) lower risk, but the workaround still exists for when people need it to. Would changing to A-S-K be acceptable to you? Or is there another underlying issue?