Comment 23 for bug 516834

Jeremy, I think your decision to close this bug was ill-judged. It is only a month since you asked me to test whether the bug continues in Lucid. What this adds up to is that I was given a month to do a distribution upgrade or the bug would not be dealt with. A distribution upgrade is a big deal and there are good reasons why sometimes people may not want to rush into it (in my case it was a combination of worry (based on experience) about breaking drivers and applications, with lack of a decent Internet connection). You could just as easily have got you answer by opening a terminal in Lucid and typing "cat /proc/sys/vm/swappiness". It would have taken you less time than it took to close the bug. Why didn't you do that? In fact when I finally did upgrade to Lucid, I chose to keep whichever configuration file I altered to get the swappiness right, so I wouldn't have been able to tell you anything useful anyway.

You should already be aware that there has been disquiet in this discussion about a perceived unwillingness to take this bug seriously, or even to acknowledge that there is a problem at all. Closing the bug so abruptly once again has not helped.