https://bugs.kde.org/show_bug.cgi?id=324234
1...@gmx-topmail.de changed: What |Removed |Added ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- CC| |1...@gmx-topmail.de --- Comment #5 from 1...@gmx-topmail.de --- First of all: I miss this feature, too. Really! Every day, when I use my laptop with a mouse connected, I miss this. Because I have loads of open windows, on different workspaces, and from time to time I want to have an easy way to clean up after a few days of work. Show all windows, this is not needed anymore, that too, click, click, click and so on. Middle-click any window in the overview would be the PERFECT solution to solve the job. First of all, I wanted to open a wish-suggestion-report to add this feature to KDE. But sadly I discovered this discussion. This argument. These opinions. Full of emotions. Full of hate. Full of childish behavior. I've studied computer since, and after reading all arguments concerning this issue, I'm really worried. Worried about Martin Gräßlin arguments. @Martin Gräßlin: You said (in the in #1 linked report): "Sorry wontfix. As can be seen in the review request the action is seen as destructive and has been removed deliberately as there is an explicit action to close a window. Re-adding would introduce the same problems which were the reasons to remove it." Using that argumentation, you should ban "rm -rf", too. Why to remove files forced recursively, if you could remove them file by file explicit using their file names, and use rmdir to remove empty directories? BTW: middle-click on any title bar closes the window, too. And that is something that is not configurable. To be honest, I'm disgusted by your comment: "I don't think I have to justify the decision. The feature had been added by me (9551c94e7c460efb3b0fd9ccb60472311ff0bf16) in the first place and it has been removed by me (f2b7ad693e8c4ef59093287473fb07a3098775bc)." Well, KDE is free software. Yes, this feature had been added by you, but it is NOT your right to remove it without any justification, just becouse you don't like it. If you don't like it, your arguments should be strong enough to survive any discussion. And if not, your arguments have not been strong enough. This is what I mean with childish behavior. "This is my toy, and if I want to remove it I can remove it and it is mine so I don't I have to justify why I destroy it". Disgusting. Really. THIS is destructive behavior, form you. Destructive behavior to the spirit of free software. To give, not to destroy! It should be the users choise to enable this. It is the philosophy of any UNIX software to allow the user to do everything (destructive) he wants to do. Teading the other bugs and discussions, it seems as this is some kind of private argument between Martin Gräßlin's private opinions and the rest of the user base. Unfortunately the argumentation was with full of emotions. Personally, I'm worried if I read in any free software an argument that says "I've gave it to you so I can remove it whenever I want". That is destructive, indeed. Back to topic: Any environment, where KDE can be run, is a native multi-user environment. So every user can (and must) have its own account, settings, configuration - even if it is just a guest account - and sould be able to configure its behavior as he wants to be. And if I want to be able to middle-click-close a window, you should leave this decision to me. "I don't think I have to justify the decision." is the thing, that is destructive to anyone that uses KDE. Because it makes KDE a plaything of some contributors. Something you cannot rely on. Do you want to be KDE to be something you cannot rely on? Because features are removed because of personal opinions without justification or discussion? -- You are receiving this mail because: You are watching all bug changes.