it's a video of Shell, uploaded by someone not connected with GNOME who had checked it out of git and compiled it himself, in May 2009 - five months before the date of the initial commit to the Unity repo. Five months before Unity got its first checkin, Shell was in a state where a third party could check it out, build it, and run it.
It just bugs me - primarily as someone with a degree in history - to see stuff that's clearly not true being bandied about. I'm trying not to get too negative about the whole Mir question, but this is kind of independent of it: I just want Mark to stop making claims that are incontrovertibly not true.
I really wish RedHat would invest a little bit more into the Desktop, to fight Ubuntus dominance on the desktop avoiding a vendor-lock-in of the desktop user-space.
However, when looking at Fedora-18 this won't probably happen overnight :/
Heh, you can't win - other people complain about Red Hat having too much control over GNOME. =)
We pay several GNOME developers to work on the project full time. I don't honestly know how many, but it's at least 6, I think. But yes, to be honest, the desktop is not a massive engineering priority for RH because it's not where our business is focused. We invest in GNOME as part of our general policy of sponsoring F/OSS development across the board, even outside areas that are directly relevant to our business.
According to Wikipedia, yes, Unity was launched before GNOME Shell did.
Developer(s) GNOME project
Initial release April 6, 2011; 22 months ago
Unity (user interface)
Original author(s) Canonical Ltd, Ayatana community
Initial release June 9, 2010; 2 years ago
Those are the stable release dates, which are basically meaningless. It's like saying Linux 'didn't exist' until 1.0 came out - Linus made his famous post in April 1991, 0.01 came out September 1991, but 1.0 didn't come out until 1994. Did Linux 'not exist' until 1994?
All the details and dates of when the two actually *existed* are in my post - Shell's first repo commits are in 2008, and there is a video of a functional build of Shell available as early as May 2009. Unity's first repo commit is in October 2009. Mark didn't say Unity had a stable release before Shell did - which would be technically correct - but that it "existed" before Shell did. It's not a meaningless technical distinction but an important one: the context was an argument about who upset whose plans. The 'stable release' date is not significant in that context: it's more significant what project 'exists' in a development context.
Nevertheless, if that video should be evidence, Shuttleworth could easily claim Unity is/was just a rebranding of Ubuntu Netbook Remix.
No-one has ever made that claim, either contemporaneously or subsequently. I am aware of no suggestion that they are the same project.
Originally Posted by alexThunder
Furthermore, it seems you recognized, that Shuttleworth was referreing to "initial stable release" and yet you make a blog post about something different but based on that post.
I did not, and he clearly was not. The word 'exist' means something entirely different from the word 'release', and the context of Shuttleworth's comment was clearly the early development of each project, not their stable release. It is not sustainable to excuse his comment on the grounds that he was referring to stable release dates: he clearly was not. Go and read it in context, if you like. Edit: if you'd like me to do it for you, here is the context:
1. Ioannis Vranos posts a 'history' in which he says "Canonical said "GNOME Shell did not fit its purpose", so they decided to make Unity, as a GNOME 3 front-end."
2. Mark replies saying "nonsense. Unity existed before Gnome Shell."
I can't see how you could possibly consider Mark to be talking about stable release dates, in that context.
Originally Posted by alexThunder
Even greater: Then why exactly do you come up with that now?
Sorry, Phoronix has lost the content there, but you were referring to the date. 2012-03-10 is clearly a typo, the correct date is 2013-03-10. He made the comment yesterday. I have corrected it. Thanks for catching that.