Comment 40 for bug 60995

(In reply to comment #11)
> Hmm, hopefully I'm not being too much of a hypocrite for saying this, but
> please only comment on this bug if you have something meaningful to add. The
> name calling and "me too" posts aren't entirely helpful. If you agree, then
> the best way to show it is by voting for the bug.
>
> Now, in response to Robert O'Callahan, I too must wonder what kind of data loss
> is possible when using the backspace key to go back, and why this is acceptable
> for Windows or Mac users. I'm not so afraid of change to suggest that keyboard
> shortcuts should *never* change--if there is a reasonable argument for changing
> them--however I do think that consistency across platforms is important.
>
> I realise this shouldn't be a political discussion, but I must say that I don't
> think Firefox should be directed by GNOME at all, since it is a GTK
> application, not GNOME, and many people run it under KDE, XFCE, etc. My
> understanding is that GNOME adopted the Backspace-as-PageUp stance from the
> EMACS people who were used to this, and this is great, and it makes sense for
> them. The problem is that most Firefox users, even on Linux, aren't EMACS
> users any more. Also, is there not a GTK setting to switch all the
> key-bindings over to EMACS-emulation mode? And thirdly, there is a Firefox
> config setting to change the behaviour of the backspace key. So with all these
> things, the minority of users who want to change the backspace functionality
> can easily do so, and like I said, a particular Linux distribution is free to
> ship that as the default as well.
>
> Also, for anyone reading this who hasn't found the interim solution to this
> problem, just set browser.backspace_action=1 in your about:config or user.js,
> and backspace will navigate back as always.
>

This isn't about manually changing it back. This about the developers doing it because they "felt it was the way to do it" after years of firefox and other browsers doing the same thing with the backspace. The correct way to fix this is to revert the change back to its original function and *if* anyone wants to change it they can.

I still do not see why this is a difficult issue to understand. I honestly think it's a pride issue now. The developers see the mistake and instead of saying "ok you are right and we made a mistake" it's now a defiance with a lame response that makes zero sense.