Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Ubuntu Unity Existed Before The GNOME Shell?

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #81
    Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
    Stop feeding the troll people...

    It is obvious that Phoronix and other opensource sites/forums are "under attack" from Canonical PR/fanbois. I have seen it all over the web. They won't accept facts because... well they won't! Let us hope a few years from now when Ubuntu will have failed miserably things like this will be a thing of the past...
    You may have noticed I stopped a few pages back, back when he stopped having anything worthwhile to say.

    Comment


    • #82
      Originally posted by TemplarGR View Post
      Stop feeding the troll people...

      It is obvious that Phoronix and other opensource sites/forums are "under attack" from Canonical PR/fanbois. I have seen it all over the web. They won't accept facts because... well they won't! Let us hope a few years from now when Ubuntu will have failed miserably things like this will be a thing of the past...
      At least we (apparently) managed to improve the level from Phoronix to Fox News, but there's still much more room for that.

      Originally posted by AdamW View Post
      You may have noticed I stopped a few pages back, back when he stopped having anything worthwhile to say.
      It's obviously not me who has nothing more to say
      Last edited by alexThunder; 03-12-2013, 07:21 PM.

      Comment


      • #83
        Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
        For my argumentation being a failure you colleague was pretty quick in agreeing that this concept is at least "slippy". In contrast to you, he didn't deny that, but made this a specific case.

        Since pointing at the previous points of the discussion seems to be asked for too much for you and having to make several attempts until you finally got what I'm after, I'm not too surprised you're not convinced yet.

        You're now trying to avoid this with questioning my credbility. Sure you have some examples where I came up with false facts, which back this accusation ... do you?
        I don't have any colleagues in this forum and yes as I have already indicated, you have damaged your own credibility by claiming I am wavering. Perhaps you should back your claims first?
        Last edited by RahulSundaram; 03-12-2013, 09:54 PM.

        Comment


        • #84
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          I don't have any colleagues in this forum
          So I guess AdamW is working for a different Red Hat?

          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          Perhaps you should back your claims first?
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          Normally, a open source project is considered to be in existence when it is announced publicly
          Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
          first lines of code were written has been the only objective criteria

          Comment


          • #85
            Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
            So I guess AdamW is working for a different Red Hat?
            I don't work for Red Hat (that bit seems to have been set by Phoronix and I don't seem to have a way to edit it) and you are engaging in selective quoting. Let me show you the full quote again

            "Normally, a open source project is considered to be in existence when it is announced publicly but since Unity was developed in private, that would give a big advantage to GNOME Shell, so looking at when the first lines of code were written has been the only objective criteria people have used all this while and you haven't proposed anything else"

            Anyone with basic comprehension should be able to see that, I haven't wavered. Try again.

            Comment


            • #86
              Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
              you are engaging in selective quoting.
              Quotes can be selective? You don't say, Sherlock.

              Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
              Anyone with basic comprehension should be able to see that, I haven't wavered. Try again.
              For someone who's either permanently unwilling to read previous posts or not able to comprehend their purpose, this seems to be a large demand.

              Furthermore I'm sure, anyone with basic comprehension knows the difference between an announcement and presence of code.

              And still, you're avoiding the original point. I'm obviously still not alone with that notion (although AdamW might not be your colleague) and even if I was, it's barely a criterium, is it? If so, why do discussions actually exist if people already need to be conviced before?

              Comment


              • #87
                Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                Quotes can be selective? You don't say, Sherlock.
                Are you really pretending to be unaware what selective quoting means? Next time, try not to mislead others by engaging in that tactics. Since you seem unable to have a honest discussion, I will stop at this point. Have fun!

                Comment


                • #88
                  Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Post
                  Are you really pretending to be unaware what selective quoting means? Next time, try not to mislead others by engaging in that tactics. Since you seem unable to have a honest discussion, I will stop at this point. Have fun!
                  On the contrary. I'm aware, that quotes are always selective, unless you quote a whole text (as in literature), which is obviously not the point of quoting at all.

                  It's also quite brave to criticize me for not being able to have honest discussions, where you're constantly avoiding and ignoring most of what I post.

                  To me it seems, that you're simply not able to talk about more than just dates and numbers.
                  Last edited by alexThunder; 03-12-2013, 10:52 PM.

                  Comment


                  • #89
                    Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                    On the contrary. I'm aware, that quotes are always selective, unless you quote a whole text (as in literature), which is obviously not the point of quoting at all.
                    You honestly don't realize that there are honest and dishonest ways to quote, ways to quote that accurately reflect that author's message and ways to quote that twist the author's message into something different? (in case you are unclear, "accurately reflect that author's message" is the honest way, "twist the author's message" is the dishonest one). If this is a new concept to you, try googleing "quote mine".

                    Originally posted by alexThunder View Post
                    To me it seems, that you're simply not able to talk about more than just dates and numbers.
                    The whole point of this thread is which pieces of software existed before the other. To me at least this seems to imply a question of which date chronologically precedes another date. In a discussion of a timeline, what do you think we are supposed to be talking about besides "dates an numbers"? Perhaps the disagreement here isn't about the definition of "existed', but rather the definition of "before".
                    Last edited by TheBlackCat; 03-13-2013, 05:47 AM.

                    Comment


                    • #90
                      Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                      You honestly don't realize that there are honest and dishonest ways to quote, ways to quote that accurately reflect that author's message and ways to quote that twist the author's message into something different? (in case you are unclear, "accurately reflect that author's message" is the honest way, "twist the author's message" is the dishonest one). If this is a new concept to you, try googleing "quote mine".
                      You honestly don't realize, that being honest or not is something different as being selective. You may have learned (and hopefully understood) that in general every text written by man is selective. You can't be really objective, since you always have something in mind you want to tell. Facts may be objective, but as soon as they're selected to assemble a greater truth, objectivity is gone.

                      RahulSundaram mostly only referred to fraction of what I said and ignored or avoided the most, if not all, of previous posts on previous pages. I wonder how this is not selective and therefore hones.

                      Furthermore I did not twist his message. I outlined that even he used two different concepts of "existed before" just as it fits him, or should I say, selective?

                      Originally posted by TheBlackCat View Post
                      The whole point of this thread is which pieces of software existed before the other. To me at least this seems to imply a question of which date chronologically precedes another date. In a discussion of a timeline, what do you think we are supposed to be talking about besides "dates an numbers"? Perhaps the disagreement here isn't about the definition of "existed', but rather the definition of "before".
                      Yes, this is what the thread originally was about. But since I considered that to be neither interesting nor important, I questioned the concept of "existed before" (in terms of software development) itself. On the first pages, it didn't seem that hard to understand, what I'm after.
                      Last edited by alexThunder; 03-13-2013, 10:42 AM.

                      Comment

                      Working...
                      X