Originally posted by TemplarGR
View Post
Announcement
Collapse
No announcement yet.
Ubuntu Unity Existed Before The GNOME Shell?
Collapse
X
-
Originally posted by TemplarGR View PostStop 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...
Originally posted by AdamW View PostYou may have noticed I stopped a few pages back, back when he stopped having anything worthwhile to say.Last edited by alexThunder; 12 March 2013, 07:21 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostFor 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?Last edited by RahulSundaram; 12 March 2013, 09:54 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostI don't have any colleagues in this forum
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostPerhaps you should back your claims first?Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostNormally, a open source project is considered to be in existence when it is announced publiclyOriginally posted by RahulSundaram View Postfirst lines of code were written has been the only objective criteria
Comment
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostSo I guess AdamW is working for a different Red Hat?
"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
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View Postyou are engaging in selective quoting.
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostAnyone with basic comprehension should be able to see that, I haven't wavered. Try again.
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
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostQuotes can be selective? You don't say, Sherlock.
Comment
-
Originally posted by RahulSundaram View PostAre 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!
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; 12 March 2013, 10:52 PM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostOn 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.
Originally posted by alexThunder View PostTo me it seems, that you're simply not able to talk about more than just dates and numbers.Last edited by TheBlackCat; 13 March 2013, 05:47 AM.
Comment
-
Originally posted by TheBlackCat View PostYou 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".
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 PostThe 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 alexThunder; 13 March 2013, 10:42 AM.
Comment
Comment