Although this is from the Windows world I do find it VERY efficient to use.
For example, the window you've just opened is maximised and your cursor is way to the left of the screen. It's way faster to move to the top left corner and do a quick double click to kill the window.
Yes, I know you can do ALT-F4 and close from the menu, but it's sooooo slow and inefficient.
The REALLY aggravating thing is that I thought, "Okay, this is Linux, the home of configuration choices, I just need to change a setting somewhere".
But noooooooo, the GNOME developers don't even let you change a setting to allow it. And from what I read will NEVER allow it.
Okay, second best option, I'll add a second close icon in the top left hand corner. Guess what? You can't HAVE more than one of the same type of icon in the menu bar. Argh!
The only way round it is...to install KDE where it's on as default. The snag is, I prefer using the GNOME desktop as it's more polished and consistent, with the exception of a handful of features I prefer on KDE.
I'm just hoping KDE 4 is more polished and less buggy when it's released in Hardy Heron.
I support this as well. It's very useful if you're running dual monitors with no panel at the top - to close windows on the right monitor, you just push the mouse into the upper right corner and click the X. In the left monitor, you just need to push the mouse into the upper left corner and double click. It's very fast and efficient.
+1 this would be very handy as a configurable option.
probably been modded down because it is "Windows-like", but it is one of those little things that helps long-time Windows users (like myself) perform the switch over to using Ubuntu as their daily OS.
If it is "configurable" and disabled by default, I see no reason why anyone would be so against this. There have been multiple (ive seen 5) bugs entered into the metacity bugzilla and all have been closed as "not a bug" or obvious "duplicate".
It is quite obvious there are many people out there who would like to see this option. I have not seen any good arguments as to why this should not be implemented.