I think you need to understand that you catch more flies with honey than vinegar.  Let me walk you through the reactions I had as I read what you wrote.

(In reply to comment #0)
> Mate Soos (the author of cryptominisat) is apparently insane and thinks that
> mind-reading/omniscience is a common human trait.

You chose to begin by insulting a person whom I respect.  In addition, the insult is clearly ridiculous.  After just once sentence, I'm starting to have a negative reaction.

> So, the tool's website nowhere explains or even expands the term "SAT solver".

Now I'm thinking, "The SAT problem has been called that since 1971.  Where has this guy been?  And is he incapable of typing 'SAT Solver' into Wikipedia's search box?"  So now, on top of my initial negative reaction, I have the impression that you are ignorant, and incapable of taking simple actions to alleviate your ignorance.

> But by following a link
> to the 2010 competition it won, I was able to divine (from the very first
> sentence, gee!) that said competition was for "solvers of the Boolean
> Satisfiability (SAT) problem".

Now sarcasm on top of the gratuitous insult.  You are not making a very good impression on me.

> Please, at the very LEAST:
> * update the summary to "A Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem solver"
> * change the first "SAT solver" in the full description to "Boolean
> Satisfiability (SAT) solver".

This is where you should have started, although the "at the very LEAST" part still smacks of sarcasm.  If your message had read like this:

------
The description and summary are somewhat opaque.  Please help Fedora's users by making the following changes:
* update the summary to "A Boolean Satisfiability (SAT) problem solver"
* change the first "SAT solver" in the full description to "Boolean
Satisfiability (SAT) solver".
------

then I would have had a very different response.

> The package catalog shouldn't require a secret decoder ring. Impenetrable
> entries like this further the outdated reputation of Linux as being unfriendly
> and confusing to users.

Now you hold me responsible for driving users away from Linux, obvious hyperbole.  My negative impressions have just been strengthened.

> I still have no idea what a "SAT solver" is. But with just a little extra
> information in the package metadata, I can at least make a semi-informed
> decision that I really don't care.

And here we get to the crux of the matter.  You don't know what a "SAT solver" is, so you want me to change it to "A Boolean Satisfiabililty (SAT) problem solver" ... whose nature you also don't understand.  I don't see this as an improvement.  Users who find the former impenetrable are going to find the latter equally impenetrable, are they not?  This package is in the "Science and Engineering" packages for a reason; it's not for casual end users.  I really don't see any point to the change you are requesting.

Hmm. Well, I certainly understand and accept most of your points — certainly, all of the ones about my personality/tone are entirely fair. It's true, I'm not a very likeable person, and extremely sarcastic. (Although, you managed to read more sarcasm in my report than I even put into it, which surprised me! And, no, I'm not saying that — any of this — sarcastically.)

You seem to be taking my comments a bit personally. That's unfortunate, and I truly regret that any of my remarks read as personal attacks. That was not my intention. (Except the remark about Soos, obviously. Which I *thought* I'd made wildly exaggerated and unbelievable enough, that it would be clear it was intended as playful. Apparently not.) It's a great boon to have passionate and invested people involved in the Project itself, as they are its lifesblood. But I've always considered personal investment to be treacherous ground in bug reporting. Reports are never (or never should be) about "blame assignment", but rather about improvement. So, I take a collectivist view of the Project — we are all in this together, we're all friends here, and bug reports are a means to collectively document issues within the project, and areas where we might be able to do a better job.

That's just my approach, of course, and I mention it only to hopefully provide some context. I was actually caught off guard somewhat by a "personal" reaction to my report, though I probably should not have been. That's my failure, and it surely would have been better if I'd first considered how my remarks might be taken personally. My apologies.

But now we get down to the technical issue at hand: the package summary/description.

Yes, it's true that if you google "SAT solver", the results are fairly explanatory. However, because the acronym SAT is most strongly associated in the US with the Scholastic Aptitude Test, googling for "SAT" alone gives a VERY different picture.

Did I think the package had anything to do with the Scholastic Aptitude Test? No, of course not. But as I am, as you say, ignorant regarding the Boolean Satisfiability problem (today is the first time I've ever encountered that phrase), the only meaning of SAT I'm personally familiar with is the standardized test. I doubt that I'm alone in this. 

So, I was now left curious what other definition of SAT was in play here. Perhaps it's a personality flaw, but I don't like unsolved puzzles. Did I need to know? Of course not. But I wanted to.

So, I selected the package (in the Add/Remove Programs application) to read the expanded description. Unfortunately, that was no help at all. The application provides a Homepage link for the project, which I dutifully clicked on. That took me to Soos' page, which fails to shed any light on the subject; it's obviously written with the assumption that anyone reading it is already well-versed in the subject area. (I really do still find that a bit amazing. I was under the impression that it was common practice that the expansion (or some explanation) be given for acronyms or initialisms the first time they're used, except perhaps for the most universally known. In fact the Overview page for SAT-Race 2010 does this, as I noted, in its very first sentence.)

That's the path we provide for package information — the application, the description and metadata within it, and the link to the software's homepage. (You mentioned the package category — unfortunately, when browsing the Newest Packages list, which I was, there's no way to discover what category the package comes from. That may be a deficiency in the application, but it means that a package's category can't be considered part of the "explanatory" information.) Yes, obviously a web search will yield more information on nearly anything, but the ideal is to have sufficient information for most users right within the application itself. Not to send them googling for every fifth term they read.

Unfortunately, our current package collection has a rather widespread "non-descriptive description" problem, IMHO. I apologize that my frustration with that situation as a whole came across as being dumped on you personally, as I can name 100 other packages that I feel have the same issue. (So, no, I absolutely wasn't in any way "[holding you] responsible for driving users away from Linux" — which is sort of a leap, actually, as I was only talking about its reputation. Regardless, that's a collective issue, and nobody's fault but everybody's.)

So, I filed this report hoping to take one small step towards improving that situation. I apologize that my approach caused it to become a much bigger deal than it should have been, and consumed an inordinate amount of your time in the process. (Far more, even, with this response... but alas, by now we're rather caught in the current.)

You haven't officially closed this report in any fashion, I realize, but your previous response appears to indicate a rejection of the change. If that's because...
1. You feel "SAT" or even "SAT solver" is a commonly-understood term that requires no explanation for most users, I can assure you that's not the case.

2. You feel there's no descriptive difference for the layperson between "SAT solver" and "A Boolean Satisfiabililty (SAT) problem solver", please reexamine that; I feel there's a vast difference.

3. You simply don't like me, then... please don't punish the Project for my personality flaws. (You don't have to like me; I'm well aware that would be asking more than is reasonable.)

This message is a reminder that Fedora 16 is nearing its end of life.
Approximately 4 (four) weeks from now Fedora will stop maintaining
and issuing updates for Fedora 16. It is Fedora's policy to close all
bug reports from releases that are no longer maintained. At that time
this bug will be closed as WONTFIX if it remains open with a Fedora 
'version' of '16'.

Package Maintainer: If you wish for this bug to remain open because you
plan to fix it in a currently maintained version, simply change the 'version' 
to a later Fedora version prior to Fedora 16's end of life.

Bug Reporter: Thank you for reporting this issue and we are sorry that 
we may not be able to fix it before Fedora 16 is end of life. If you 
would still like to see this bug fixed and are able to reproduce it 
against a later version of Fedora, you are encouraged to click on 
"Clone This Bug" and open it against that version of Fedora.

Although we aim to fix as many bugs as possible during every release's 
lifetime, sometimes those efforts are overtaken by events. Often a 
more recent Fedora release includes newer upstream software that fixes 
bugs or makes them obsolete.

The process we are following is described here: 
http://fedoraproject.org/wiki/BugZappers/HouseKeeping

Fedora 16 changed to end-of-life (EOL) status on 2013-02-12. Fedora 16 is 
no longer maintained, which means that it will not receive any further 
security or bug fix updates. As a result we are closing this bug.

If you can reproduce this bug against a currently maintained version of 
Fedora please feel free to reopen this bug against that version.

Thank you for reporting this bug and we are sorry it could not be fixed.