Ubuntu Unity Existed Before The GNOME Shell?

[bkor]

Actually it was just a comment from Shuttleworth responding to another comment. Phoronix made this a big deal.

To me, Mark is Canonical. Phoronix has loads of articles per day. I wouldn't say this article is any different than any other Phoronix article. E.g. even in an email where I say "Just trolling", it is taken as news.

[alexThunder]

I do not care at all. It is Canonical who is making a big deal out of it and that they were "first".

Actually it was just a comment from Shuttleworth responding to another comment. Phoronix made this a big deal.

[bkor]

There are far more indicators, which could be used to show the existence of such a project and most, if not all of them, lead to a different date. Therefore picking one of them is just random and, especially subjective and selective (both of the terms seem to be more important here, than I expected first). If you pick all of them, it's pretty much a stable release, but that, of course, ignores all the previous work. That led me to the conclusion, that the concept of "existed before" does not make sense at all.

I do not care at all. It is Canonical who is making a big deal out of it and that they were "first".

[alexThunder]

Hmm, if you continue this please then tell in following posts what were your opinion about who did what first.

I have completely lost what is your opinions in this arguing about arguing

Seems, that I was right about RahulSundaram was trying to distract people.

However, I didn't really have an opinion about who was first, instead I questioned in how far you can tell at all, when a software project starts to exist.
To go further, I think, such a project clearly exists, when there is a usable stable release.

On the one hand, still, that doesn't mean there is no existence before. In addition, stability is a rather subjective measure, too, which make the concept of "existed before" even more fuzzy.
On the other hand, you may know that already having a design of the software can be more worth than the code itself. The bigger the project, the more worth to the design.

It is obvious, that the code of the gnome shell was publicly available before Unity's (surprisingly I was accused for doubting that, although I never did). But does this mean, code being written in private doesn't exist at all? I understand, how people consider such code worth nothing in the open-source community, but personal consideration doesn't make this (non-)existent, does it? You could also argue, that Unity is (or at least was) a plain redesign of the Ubuntu Netbook Remix and it should also be obvious, that Unity wouldn't be, where it is right now, without that UNR. In that case, the start of existence was between the time of UNR and the first commit to Unity, but to find an accurate date within that timeline is hardly possible.

Another indicator used in here was the public announcement. As this was not equally sufficient for both projects, it was gone back to public presence of LoC. But on what basis? Why should this actually be a valid move, if there are more indicators, which could be considered? Why only this one? It seems pretty random to me.

There are far more indicators, which could be used to show the existence of such a project and most, if not all of them, lead to a different date. Therefore picking one of them is just random and, especially subjective and selective (both of the terms seem to be more important here, than I expected first). If you pick all of them, it's pretty much a stable release, but that, of course, ignores all the previous work. That led me to the conclusion, that the concept of "existed before" does not make sense at all.

[moilami]

Hmm, if you continue this please then tell in following posts what were your opinion about who did what first.

I have completely lost what is your opinions in this arguing about arguing

[alexThunder]

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?

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.

[TheBlackCat]

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".

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".

[alexThunder]

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.

[RahulSundaram]

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!

[alexThunder]

you are engaging in selective quoting.

Quotes can be selective? You don't say, Sherlock.

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?